Reforming the Criminal Justice System in India: Challenges and the Way Forward

Abstract

India’s criminal justice system is undergoing scrutiny for being outdated, inefficient, and at times unfair. With rising crime rates, slow trials, overcrowded jails, and procedural delays, the need for reform is more pressing than ever. This article explores the foundational issues, evaluates recent changes, and provides suggestions for making the system more responsive and just. By examining legal frameworks, judicial interpretations, and current reforms like the BNS, the article aims to present a practical way forward to rebuild trust in justice delivery. It also emphasizes the importance of police accountability, access to quality legal aid, and shifting away from colonial-era practices to create a more equitable and citizen-centric criminal justice system.

Introduction

India’s criminal justice system is the backbone of law and order in the country. But let’s be real—it’s not been doing too great lately. We’ve seen long delays in trials, people spending years in jail waiting for their cases to be heard, and a system that feels heavy, outdated, and sometimes even unfair.

This is important because justice delayed is truly justice denied. And when people stop believing that the system will protect them or punish the guilty, society loses its trust in the rule of law.

Historically, India’s criminal justice framework was built during the British colonial period. Many of those laws, including the Indian Penal Code, CrPC, and Evidence Act, were created more than 150 years ago. In today’s fast-changing society, laws that old can’t always deal with modern issues like cybercrime, white-collar fraud, or data breaches.

This article takes a clear look at what’s wrong, what’s been changing, and what still needs to be done to make the criminal justice system faster, fairer, and more efficient.

Legal Framework

India’s criminal laws primarily come from three key statutes:

1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – defines offenses and their punishments.
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – outlines the procedure for investigation, trial, and sentencing.
3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – lays down rules about how evidence is collected, presented, and examined.

Until recently, these three laws had not seen major overhauls. But that changed in 2023 with the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill (BSB). These are intended to replace the IPC, CrPC, and Evidence Act respectively. The goal is to bring in modern terminology, simplify processes, and make justice delivery quicker.

The new laws attempt to decolonize the legal system, increase digital usage in criminal trials, and put more emphasis on victim-centric justice. While the intent is commendable, implementation and awareness among the stakeholders will determine its success.

Judicial Interpretation

Over the years, Indian courts have played a big role in shaping how laws are applied. One of the most impactful judgments was Prakash Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court directed police reforms to reduce political interference and improve accountability.

In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360, the Supreme Court highlighted the problem of undertrials and declared that a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

These decisions pushed the system to recognize that delays and lack of reforms harm both the accused and the victims. Yet, despite these landmark rulings, progress has been slow due to lack of will and coordination between various stakeholders.

Critical Analysis

Here’s where things start to look problematic. Let’s break it down:

• Undertrials and Overcrowding: As of 2023, over 75% of prisoners in India are undertrials. This is mostly because bail procedures are slow, and courts are overburdened. Many people, especially from poor backgrounds, stay in jail not because they’re guilty but because they can’t afford bail or good lawyers.
• Police Reforms: Despite the SC’s directions in Prakash Singh, most states have yet to fully implement the suggested reforms. The police continue to work under political pressure, and complaints of custodial torture and fake encounters haven’t stopped.
• Delays in Trials: India has a backlog of over 4 crore cases across courts. Lack of judges, outdated procedures, and frequent adjournments all contribute to the delay.
• Biases and Inequality: Marginalized communities—like Dalits, Adivasis, and Muslims—often face systemic bias. They’re more likely to be arrested, less likely to get bail, and more likely to be convicted. This imbalance makes the system look unjust.
• Digital Challenges: While technology like video trials and e-filing is being introduced, many district courts lack the infrastructure. Plus, a lot of lawyers and police officers aren’t trained in digital processes.

Recent Developments

1. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023:

1. • Replaces IPC.
   • Includes new offences like mob lynching.
   • Emphasizes community service and restitution to victims.

2. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023:

1. • Replaces CrPC.
   • Sets tighter deadlines for filing chargesheets.
   • Promotes use of technology in evidence gathering and trials.

3. Bharatiya Sakshya Bill (BSB), 2023:

1. • Replaces the Evidence Act.
   • Allows for electronic and digital records as primary evidence.

These are major steps, no doubt. But critics have pointed out that public consultation was limited and that implementation may be patchy, especially in rural and semi-urban areas.

Suggestions / Way Forward

• Speed up Case Disposal: We need more fast-track courts and night courts to handle backlog. Also, increasing the number of judges will help reduce delays.
• Strengthen Legal Aid: Free legal aid should be made stronger and more accessible, especially for undertrial prisoners.
• Police Accountability: Set up independent complaints authorities in each state to investigate police misconduct.
• Victim-Centric Approach: The system needs to focus more on helping victims—whether it’s compensation, protection, or psychological support.
• Use of Technology: Invest in better tech infrastructure for digital trials, online FIRs, and video testimonies. Also, train staff to use these tools effectively.
• Sensitization and Education: Train judges, police, and lawyers to be sensitive to gender, caste, and minority issues. This would go a long way in ensuring fair treatment.
• Better Jail Reforms: Jails should not be punishment factories. Focus should be on rehabilitation and education of inmates.
• Monitoring and Evaluation: Independent audits and regular reviews of court and police performance should be made public. Transparency increases trust.

The Role of Police

One of the most crucial—but often controversial—players in India’s criminal justice system is the police. The success or failure of criminal reforms largely depends on how police and investigative agencies operate in real-time. Sadly, the reality on ground is far from ideal.

Key Issues with Police Functioning:

• Colonial mindset still persists: Many experts argue that police continue to operate like a force of control rather than service. This top-down approach creates fear rather than trust.
• Lack of accountability: Despite clear laws and even Supreme Court orders (like in Prakash Singh v. Union of India), police reforms are largely ignored in practice. Political interference and corruption continue unchecked.
• Poor training and overload: Most police personnel lack proper training in dealing with modern crimes like cyber fraud, data theft, or digital harassment. Add to that an overwhelming workload, and investigation quality suffers.
• Custodial violence and misuse of power: This remains a dark reality. Incidents of custodial deaths or torture still crop up regularly. While there are guidelines, the absence of a strong anti-torture law allows misuse to go unpunished.

One of the most crucial—but often controversial—players in India’s criminal justice system is the police. The success or failure of criminal reforms largely depends on how police and investigative agencies operate in real-time. Sadly, the reality on ground is far from ideal.

What Needs to Change:

1. Independent Investigation Units: To improve trust, we need clear separation between law and order duties and crime investigation. An independent investigative wing with trained officers is essential.
2. Police Training & Sensitization: Better training—not just on legal procedures but also on human rights, mental health, and gender sensitivity—is a must. Knowing the law isn’t enough; applying it fairly matters.
3. Use of Technology: Modern tools like body cams, digital case management, and forensic upgrades can help investigations be more evidence-based and transparent.
4. Community Policing Models: Instead of being feared, police should be approachable. Some states like Kerala and Maharashtra have tried community policing—where officers work with locals to resolve issues before they escalate. This must be adopted more widely.
5. Implementation of Prakash Singh guidelines: These include fixed tenures for senior officers, State Security Commissions, and Police Complaints Authorities—none of which have been followed fully. Enforcing these could bring real accountability.

Comparative Jurisprudence

• United Kingdom: The UK’s Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 (PACE) offers a rights-based framework for arrests, searches, and detention. Independent bodies such as the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigate complaints against the police, ensuring greater accountability. Moreover, safeguards for the mentally ill, juveniles, and linguistic minorities are better integrated into legal practice.
• United States: The Miranda doctrine, originating in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), ensures that accused persons are informed of their rights upon arrest. The plea bargaining system, while controversial, has helped in reducing the backlog. Moreover, the public defender system guarantees representation irrespective of financial capability. Despite criticisms about racial bias in enforcement, U.S. courts have more robust precedent on police excess and exclusionary rules under the Fourth Amendment.
• Canada: Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensures robust protections for the accused, including the right to counsel and trial within a reasonable time. Section 24 allows courts to exclude evidence obtained through rights violations. The country also has integrated restorative justice models and community-based sentencing frameworks, providing useful models for India.

Alternative Approaches to Criminal Justice: Think Beyond Punishment

One thing that’s become clear over the years is that punishing every offender through long trials and jail time doesn’t always work—especially in cases of minor offenses. So, what else can India consider! Let’s explore some practical and community-based alternatives that can ease the burden on courts, improve justice delivery, and actually help people involved in the system.

1. Restorative Justice – Make It About Healing, Not Just Punishment

Restorative justice is gaining attention globally—and for good reason. Instead of focusing only on punishing the offender, this method brings together the victim, offender, and community to find a way to make things right. This can include:

• A formal apology and acknowledgment of harm.
• Monetary or community-based compensation.
• Mediation sessions between the parties.

This method works particularly well for minor crimes, where the offender is willing to take responsibility. It gives closure to the victim and a chance for the offender to reform—without unnecessarily crowding jails.

2. Lok Adalats & Gram Nyayalayas – Simple Justice for Simple Matters

India already has mechanisms like Lok Adalats, which have successfully resolved thousands of disputes in a single day. They are informal, cost-effective, and fast.

• Lok Adalats could be used more often for compoundable criminal cases.
• Gram Nyayalayas, or village courts, if properly implemented, can help with petty offenses at the local level.

These systems promote access to justice in rural and underserved areas and reduce dependency on formal courts for every small matter.

3. Decriminalize Poverty – Let’s Not Punish the Poor for Being Poor

Often, people from economically weaker sections are criminalized for things like:

• Begging
• Street vending
• Loitering or petty theft due to need

These are not crimes by nature, but rather indicators of social and economic failure. Instead of jail time, such issues need:

• Welfare support
• Rehabilitation programs
• Access to housing, jobs, and healthcare

Reforms should focus on support, not punishment, for the underprivileged.

4. Learn from Other Countries – But Tailor It for India

Countries like Norway and New Zealand focus on rehabilitation, not punishment. Their prisons offer education, therapy, and vocational training, and their recidivism (repeat offense) rates are among the lowest in the world.

India doesn’t need to copy-paste their system, but we can adapt some ideas, especially for:

• Juvenile offenders
• First-time or low-risk offenders

Giving people a second chance shouldn’t be the exception—it should be built into the system.

5. NGOs, Social Workers & Local Councils – Everyone Can Help Justice reform isn’t just about courts and police. Community actors like NGOs, counselors, and legal aid groups play a major role in:

• Spreading awareness about rights
• Mediating disputes
• Rehabilitating former offenders

The government should fund and involve these actors more in the justice process.

Conclusion

Reforming the criminal justice system in India is not an easy task. But it’s necessary—and urgent. With the new legal reforms in place, there’s an opportunity to create a system that is faster, fairer, and more responsive. Still, laws alone can’t fix the problem. What we need is the will to implement them properly, the resources to support them, and the accountability to make sure they work. If we manage to do that, we won’t just have a new legal system—we’ll have a better society.

Reference(S):

• Prakash Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1.

• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360.

• INDIA CONST. art. 21.

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, No. 46 of 2023, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, No. 47 of 2023, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

• Ministry of Law and Justice, National Judicial Data Grid, https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in (last visited July 22, 2025).

• National Crime Records Bureau, Prison Statistics India 2023 (Gov’t of India).

• Legal Services Authorities Act, No. 39 of 1987, 12, Acts of Parliament, 1987 (India).