Criminal Justice System – Societal Perspectives
Introduction
The criminal justice system (CJS) consists of institutions such as the police, courts, and prisons that enforce criminal laws. Its functioning deeply impacts society as it seeks to balance law enforcement, justice delivery, and protection of individual rights.
From a societal perspective, the criminal justice system must ensure:
Fairness and equality in treatment regardless of social status.
Protection of fundamental human rights.
Accountability and transparency to maintain public trust.
Addressing social realities like poverty, discrimination, and systemic biases.
Mechanisms for rehabilitation and social reintegration of offenders.
Key Societal Themes in Criminal Justice:
Access to Justice: Ensuring all sections, especially marginalized groups, can access justice.
Police Accountability: Preventing abuse of power by law enforcement.
Rights of Accused: Presumption of innocence, fair trial, legal aid.
Victim’s Rights: Recognition and protection of victims.
Rehabilitation vs. Punishment: Balancing punitive measures with reformative justice.
Role of Judiciary: Upholding constitutional morality and social justice.
Community Participation: Encouraging restorative justice models involving community.
Important Case Laws Reflecting Societal Perspectives in CJS
Case 1: Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981) 1 SCC 627
Facts: The petitioner challenged illegal detention and police brutality.
Issue: Whether police action was lawful and if detainee rights were violated.
Judgment: Supreme Court emphasized protection against custodial violence and ordered compensation for illegal detention.
Societal Perspective: The case highlighted the need for police accountability and protection of individual dignity.
Case 2: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) 3 SCC 249
Facts: Petition regarding undertrial prisoners languishing in jail without trial.
Issue: Right to speedy trial and access to justice.
Judgment: The Court declared that delay in trial violates Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) and mandated release of undertrial prisoners.
Societal Perspective: Ensured justice for marginalized prisoners, underscoring the importance of timely justice.
Case 3: Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986) 3 SCC 596
Facts: Addressed plight of women prisoners and lack of legal aid.
Issue: Conditions of women in prison and access to justice.
Judgment: Supreme Court mandated improvement in prison conditions and free legal aid for underprivileged.
Societal Perspective: Recognized intersectionality—gender and class—in justice access.
Case 4: M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 6 SCC 756
Facts: Police atrocities and custodial deaths.
Issue: Need for police reforms and protection of fundamental rights.
Judgment: Court ordered establishment of independent police complaints authorities and human rights sensitization.
Societal Perspective: Strengthened mechanisms for police accountability to build public confidence.
Case 5: D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Facts: Guidelines to prevent custodial torture and deaths.
Issue: Protection of arrested persons’ rights.
Judgment: Supreme Court issued landmark guidelines (e.g., informing relatives, medical examination) to prevent custodial abuse.
Societal Perspective: Judicial activism aimed at protecting vulnerable during criminal justice processes.
Case 6: Arun Kumar v. State of Haryana (2014) 8 SCC 404
Facts: Reiterated importance of fair trial and presumption of innocence.
Issue: Protection of accused from wrongful conviction.
Judgment: Court emphasized strict proof beyond reasonable doubt and safeguarding accused’s rights.
Societal Perspective: Reinforced justice system’s role as protector of individual liberties.
Case 7: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241
Facts: Sexual harassment at workplace.
Issue: Right to safe environment and dignity.
Judgment: Supreme Court laid down Vishaka Guidelines for preventing sexual harassment.
Societal Perspective: Expanded criminal justice focus to include social justice and dignity.
Case 8: Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 427
Facts: Petition against acid attacks.
Issue: Rights of victims and need for effective redressal.
Judgment: Court mandated victim compensation and stricter laws.
Societal Perspective: Justice system recognizing victim-centric approaches.
Summary Table: Societal Perspectives in CJS through Case Law
| Case | Societal Aspect Focus | Key Judicial Message |
|---|---|---|
| Khatri v. State of Bihar | Police accountability | Protection against custodial violence |
| Hussainara Khatoon v. Bihar | Access to speedy trial | Right to timely justice under Article 21 |
| Sheela Barse v. Union of India | Prisoners’ rights, gender perspective | Prison reform and free legal aid |
| M.C. Mehta v. Tamil Nadu | Police reforms | Need for independent police oversight |
| D.K. Basu v. West Bengal | Custodial rights protection | Guidelines to prevent torture |
| Arun Kumar v. Haryana | Fair trial rights | Presumption of innocence, burden of proof |
| Vishaka v. Rajasthan | Workplace dignity and safety | Preventing sexual harassment |
| Laxmi v. Union of India | Victim rights and redressal | Compensation and stricter victim protection laws |
Conclusion
The criminal justice system is not only a legal mechanism but a social institution that must address societal inequalities, protect human rights, and ensure fairness. Judicial pronouncements have progressively emphasized:
Protection of the vulnerable.
Transparency and accountability of law enforcement.
Victim-centric approaches.
Balance between social order and individual freedoms.
Society demands that the criminal justice system evolve to be more humane, efficient, and inclusive.
RELATED Blog
0 comments