Supreme Court Verdict on Investigation Lapses


Supreme Court Judgement:

Supreme Court Judgment on Investigation Lapses

Here we will discuss about the Supreme Court judgment on investigation lapses. Before starting, we will first look into its background.

In a few cases, the accused was acquitted due lack of evidence. Even if a person is accused of serious crimes like rape and murder, they were pronounced not guilty at minor fine of Rs.1000. The Supreme Court stated that there should be a departmental enquiry or action initiated against all botched inquiries and the investigators as well.

The Supreme Court has given 6 months deadline to implement the new guidelines. It could also be said that SC should reform the entire chain or trinity of justice instead of targeting one specific link. It should vouch for the reforms in police, prosecution and courts procedures. Only then, the holistic reform will take place to meet the ends of justice.

A few questions ?

Now, we need to ask a few questions -

  • Once the departmental action will be initiated against the investigator, would he be able to appeal against the findings of the departments?
  • How many levels he would have to go on appeal?
  • Would the case end up like the ordinary cases, wherein there is normally a long delay to get justice?

It is often said that SC doesn’t monitor its judgments, although it gives out very meaningful verdicts. The classical example of it could be seen in the Prakash Singh case. In this case, the SC mandated some Police reforms in 2006, but it is still unimplemented in majority of the states.

Now, the IPS officers who are highly educated, trained and have in depth knowledge about system can claim the Right of Interference. So, why they shouldn’t be held responsible for the lack of supervision over these investigations? Why only an investigator should be targeted rather than accusing the supervisor of the investigation process?

The judges, who have major power and who played a major role in unfolding the evidences in the interest of justice, are they really doing it to give justice at the end. It is said that the SC often gives populist judgments without holding the factual information.

However, a question arises here and that is shouldn’t the SC give scientific judgments depending on the facts and figures?  The trial courts, which are always in some area of focus, should always have pro-active judges to meet the end of justice. However, in reality, we only see a few numbers of pro-active judges.

Furthermore, what about the police to people ratio? The United Nation’s mandate says that there should be around 222 police per lakh people. However, in India, this ratio is quite low.

What about the investigation and interrogation skills of these investigators? What about the police reforms? SC has never spoken about the capacity of the public prosecutors (PP).

Unless these basic questions are answered, we could really fall short of the reform of the dignity of justice, as we said earlier. The reforms of police, prosecution and courts are utterly important for us.

With this, we end the chapter “Supreme Court Judgment on Investigation Lapses”.