Indias Criminal Justice System and Terrorism - Essay Example

India’s Criminal Justice System and Terrorism The Republic of India is the world’s largest democracy in terms of population. Their criminal justice system is one of the oldest and has been functions for thousands of years. India is a nation made up hundreds of religions, languages, and cultures. This country has seen numerous rulers from the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Dynasty between the tenth and sixteenth centuries. The country of India has been greatly influenced by other countries such as: Portugal, Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom. These countries colonized various parts of India after the sixteenth century. In 1856, India came under British rule by the British East India Company. Only in 1947, with the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, did India become a free independent democratic nation. It makes sense then that India’s criminal justice system would be greatly influenced by British criminal laws, based on almost one hundred years of British rule. One main difference between India’s and Great Britain’s laws is the existence of specific law codes that apply and are followed only by certain religious groups within India. These are separate laws governing specifically the Muslims, Christians, and Hindus. Yet, with the large population, the decrease in space for its people, and various religions, how does India maintain its law and order? In order to further understand how India’s criminal justice system works, it is important to understand its basic regulatory framework. How does a country with a total land and water area of 3,287,590 square kilometers, a booming population of 1,095,351,995 people, thousands of languages, religions, and cultures, and castes, manage to maintain any functional criminal justice system? (India, 2006, November 30). This system is not always properly functional. In fact, the state of India’s criminal justice system cause heated debates between everyone living within India. The Constitution of India states that it is a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic. (India, 2006, December 3). Along with a two-chambered Parliament, India has three branches of federal government consisting of a legislative, executive, and judicial branch. Of these three, the Constitution of India gives the legislative branch ultimate power in making laws for the country. Power reserved for one specific branch, the legislative, has caused many problems for India’s justice system. India’s Parliament is modeled after the United Kingdom’s Westminster Parliamentary system. Laws passed by India’s Parliament have precedence and rule over laws passed by any other government authority, other than those which are passed by the Supreme Court of India. The main figure head of government is India’s Prime Minster, but it is in namesake only because this person has relatively little power. The Chief Justice of India heads India’s Supreme Court and this person appoints twenty-five High Court judges (or associate judges) in cooperation with the President of India. These judges remain in office until they reach the age of sixty-five, or are removed from office based on confirmed actions of misconduct. The India Supreme Court has control over such matters as: conflicts existing between the individual states and the central government, appellate jurisdiction over the twenty-one High Courts of India, and authority to declare laws null and void if they contradict Constitutional law. (India, 2006, December 3). The High Courts of India consist of courts from an individual state or union territory, or a group of these, within India. Each state is divided up into judicial districts, and within these districts there are Sessions and District judges who preside over them, The Sessions Judges having the highest authority. These two judges have the authority to judge on all offenses within their jurisdiction, even those crimes which are punishable by death. The High Courts have control over smaller courts such as: civil, family, criminal, and the various district courts within the states or union territories. Most of their work is received by these courts through appeals The next in line of authority are the courts for civil jurisdiction. These civil courts are referred to by numerous names based on the state they are located within. They may be known commonly as Sub-Judges, Civil Judges, or Munsifs. For criminal cases, there are the Chief Judicial and Judicial Judges ranked in first and second classes. India’s criminal justice system is strictly governed by two important codes, the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973. These codes cannot be changed or amended by any state. The Indian Penal code, which was greatly influenced by British rule, was passed into legislation in 1862. This code specifically defines and classifies crimes into categories along with the types of punishments that are suitable to the crime. It also explains the type of crimes that can be committed against the: state, armed forces, public order, the human body, and property. The crimes can be directly related to elections, religion, marriage, health, safety, decency, and morals. This code explains the six categories of punishments given for crimes, and they are: fines, forfeiture of property, simple imprisonment, rigorous imprisonment which involves hard labor, life imprisonment, and even death. (India: The Criminal Justice System, 1995, September). Any person can be placed into prison if unable to pay fines placed upon them. Death sentences in India are typically reserved for serial killers or assassins, and these types of sentences are rare and usually get reduced to a life sentence. All executions within India are done by hanging. In the southern state of Tamil Nadu there were a recorded total of three executions in 1993 and two in 1994. Execution records from other states are not easily available because they are not easily accessible to the public or they are not kept. The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 went into effect on April 1, 1974, and this replaced an existing code dated from 1898. This mapped out the system for the courts on prevention and punishments for crimes. This amended code was intended to speed up and increase efficiency of the judicial process, prevent abuse, and provide legal aid to the poor. This code allowed for certain powers for judges, each with specific duties, for its criminal courts. Executive judges have the power to issue warrants, advising the police force, and enforcing appropriate procedures in dealing with public violence. (India: The Criminal Justice System, 1995, September). . There are judicial or trial judges who preside over hearings and make rulings and pass out sentences. Petty and local crimes are settled in Panchayat courts which are found in villages throughout India. They are also referred to in various other names such as: Nyaya Panchayat, Panchayat Adalat, and Gram Kachheri. Panchayat courts are organized by the elder statesmen who can pass judgments and solve conflicts among the villagers. This is a very effective system which solves a lot of conflicts between villagers who would otherwise be unable to access a courtroom in a nearby city. Most criminal justice systems around the world face their own specific obstacles in regards to maintaining order and control over its nation. The media, within India, spends a great amount of time in spreading any and all news relating to the criminal justice system because every citizen in India wants to be well informed about crime and the prevention of it. India’s judicial system has three main obstacles which prevents success in controlling and preventing crimes. These obstacles are under great debate among the general public. The Indian judicial system is notorious for lengthy delays and backlogs. In fact, at any given time there can be as many as 3,400,000 cases that are pending throughout the country. It is predicted that it may take more than three hundred years to settle these cases at the current rate of judicial reviews. (Adawal, Dr. Shanker, 2006, April 2). The Supreme Court has recognized this problem and has directed that any cases that involve the elderly should be settled first. This rule has no merit within most courts, and so far, this is their only attempt at speeding up the process. This is just one example of the condition that India’s criminal justice system is in. Lengthy delays in court trials are necessarily the norm throughout all of India. A court located in Jodhpur made history by completing the trial of a rape case within fifteen days. (Lawyers, Journos, not Separate Class, 2003, December 16). This was a rare and isolated incidence which involved a foreign German national. This might have been the reason why the law enforcement and the Rajasthan high court were inspired to issue a fast trial and judgment. The authorities felt they would be held more accountable. This specific case would put the entire countries criminal justice system on display within India and the rest of the world. The quick actions from the police to the judges should be used as a nationwide example, irregardless of the reasons involved as to why it was finished quickly. Another large obstacle is the lack of proper infrastructure within the lower court system. In many rural parts of India there are insufficient numbers of courtrooms with an inadequate or nonexistent number of employees. More often than not, funds are not available for buildings and employees. This is due to the ever increased problem of corruption within the government. Any citizen of India will say that the largest problem in the criminal justice system is the high occurrence of corruption. This is largely due to the fact that those individuals who are in legislative power choose to abuse it. Bribes are a common occurrence starting from the police force to the judge himself. This can be partly attributed to the low wages that many of the government employees are paid. Most often, a judge and a lawyer work together for each others financial benefit. The lawyer facilitates bribes for a judge, and in return, the judge grants a specific number of adjournments for the lawyer. This possibly results in a higher income for the lawyer, and so, both the judge and lawyer benefit financially. The Former Chief Justice of India, Justice Venkatcheliah, claims that another failure of India’s judicial system has resulted in the occurrence and increase of a parallel system of judiciary. (Adawal, Dr. Shanker, 2006, April 2). This “system” exists in areas controlled by the Naxalites, a revolutionary communist terrorist group, and north-eastern Indian regions are commonly called the Jan Adalats or Kangroo Courts. These are managed by numerous extremist groups, and result in a considerable drop in court cases in these areas. Jan Adalats can be held openly for victims in an attempt to alleviate the fears that they and the general public have against certain criminals in the area. They are held for the benefit of those with grievances. The public can freely approach the government official who is holding the Jan Adalat. Any concerned non-government official(s) will be sent to the concerned party in a prompt manner in an attempt to solve the citizen’s problems. Most villagers choose this system of non-government ruling because they feel that the whole judicial system is too costly and time consuming. India’s population majority consists mainly of the poor and ill educated villagers. Those located in this rural population are too scared and intimidated by India’s judicial court system, most of the time choosing suicide as an only alternative to solving their problems. The Government of India has recognized the state of affairs that their criminal justice system is in. In 1955, The Law Commission was organized by the government. Its main goal was to make recommendations for revisions and updates of laws to suit the needs of the country. The Home Ministry of India also created and appointed The Malimath Committee to inspect India’s criminal justice system. Many people who support human rights argue that the Home Ministry will favor only the Malimath report for future amendment laws and ignore any actions or objections coming from the Law Commission. (Batra, Bikram Jeet, 2003, December). Terrorism within India has been a large problem over many years. In 2005, the U.S. National Counter-Terrorism Center declared that India reported more deaths due to terrorism attacks than any other nation, apart from Iraq. (India: The Criminal Justice System, 1995, September). Most of the terrorist organizations within India come from the Seven Sister States in northeastern India, central India, and Jammu, and Kashmir. Only recently has the country’s capital city of New Delhi and Punjab joined this list due to various outbreaks of terrorist attacks in these areas. The Indian government’s stance on terrorism is that they choose not to entertain any international intervention. They insist that terrorist organizations must stop their violence before any negotiations are initiated by them. (Country Reports on Terrorism, 2006, April 28). The most prominent terrorist groups originating within India are the Maoists in the “Naxalite belt” of the eastern part of India, a group of extremist separatists located in Jammu and Kashmir, and ethno-linguistic nationalists in the northeastern states. Terrorism is a major problem also among the large population of Hindu’s in India and the Muslim’s in Pakistan, though there is a sizable population of Buddhists located within this region as well. The border control of Kashmir and Jammu is a large debate between these two countries, and therefor, has been heavily patrolled by both countries. The area of Kashmir is highly unsafe and still remains one of the most violent areas in the world. This area is responsible for an average of 2,500 terrorist incidents every year. This is why foreigners outside this region are not allowed entry through its borders. Thousands of civilians, Indian security forces, Kashmiri and non-Kashmiri militants, and Islamic terrorists have all been killed since 1989 due to India’s military and the increasing amounts of uprisings. One of the most startling attacks against India’s government included one on October 1, 2001. A car bomb was planted and exploded near a Kashmir and Jammu State Assembly meeting. Twenty-seven people were killed and the attack was made by Kashmiri separatists. Another significance terrorist act incidence occurred in January of 1998. This involved the murder of twenty four Kashmiri religious scholars or Pandits living in the city of Wandhama, this is why it was later called the Wandhama Massacre. The Kashmiri militants disguised themselves as officers from the Indian Army and entered their homes and fired openly. This attack received a lot of attention because former President Bill Clinton was scheduled to visit India around that time. The government in New Delhi used the opportunity to press a case against terrorism that is supported by Pakistan. One of the recent terrorist events was in May of this year, where a group of militants murdered thirty-five Hindus in two districts located within Kashmir and Jammu. Terrorism in Kashmir has had many adverse effects. The major consequence is the continued increase in loss of lives. There has been a lot of heated debate on the amount of death casualties from the numerous uprisings. The local military has been accused of acts of genocide against those living in Kashmir. In 2000, the Government of India declared that there have been 31,000 deaths of Indian citizens since the 1980’s. Non-government organizations (NGO’s) and human rights activists claim that the total death toll is closer to 85,000 civilians. Local authorities are unable to control the large scale aggression and as a result lawlessness rules the area. Certain areas within Kashmir have extremely high occurrences of rape, kidnapping, looting, rioting, and money laundering. The citizens located in this region have had to suffer very poor and unsafe living conditions, and had had their basic human rights stripped away from them. Government authorities in India’s capital, New Delhi, and Pakistan, finally agreed upon a ceasefire agreement in 2003. The Indian army also agreed to close the line of control (LOC) between the border of India and Pakistan, and they both agreed upon decreasing the amount of military personnel deployed in the region. As a result of these measures, terrorist and violent acts have declined since 2004, but have not stopped completely. This is good news for the future rehabilitation of Kashmir and Jammu. The Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO), which was issued in 1948, defined terrorism as “any act which involves the use of a lethal weapon.” (Prevention of Terrorism Act Passed, 2002, March 28). A terrorist could be anyone who supported a known terrorist organization or arranging support meetings on behalf of a terrorist group. (Prevention of Terrorism Act Passed, 2002, March 28). This ordinance also allowed for terrorist suspects to be jailed for three months, or imprisoned for six months upon order of a criminal judge. If an accused terrorist suspect refuses to supply samples of handwriting, fingerprints, footprints, blood, saliva, hair, or semen, it can be later used against them in a court of law. This ordinance was later amended and renamed to The Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) in 2002. This act has received a lot of controversy and arguments from all angles. Various political figures have been arrested under POTA. One of the first political figures to be arrested was a general secretary member of Parliament. This person was arrested based on various speeches he had given on pro-liberalism. In December of 2003, an amendment was passed to prevent the misuse of POTA. This has led to a lot of controversy as to whether POTA is still an effective means of terrorist prevention. There are some groups who feel that the law is not effective enough, despite the fact that it allows draconian power to the police and investigators. Numerous incidences of innocent people being held on authority of POTA have been publicized throughout India. (My Support for POTA was a Serious Mistake, 2004, July 16). General Secretary of India, Praveen Togadia, called the Prevention of Terrorism Act a “lame law,” and that this act “would not help fight terrorism.” (POTA a Lame Law to Fight Terrorism: Togadia, 2002, March 31). He claims that POTA is “…a much stronger law than those that existed before it, it is still not potent enough to fight terrorism.” (POTA a Lame Law to Fight Terrorism: Togadia, 2002, March 31). Togadia insists that to fight terrorism, India must adapt similar anti-terrorism laws which exist in countries such as the U.S and U.K. Meanwhile, various political parties are opposing POTA only because of their focus on the minority vote. India’s criminal justice system has improved a great deal when compared to the system in effect during the fourth century B.C. India during this period had a very strict penal system which involved death and mutilation as punishment for even minor offenses. Nevertheless, there are many improvements to be made in the system so that it will become more effective. A possible improvement could include eliminating corruption within legislation by sharing powers equally among the three branches of government. India’s government can strengthen its criminal justice system by providing more courtrooms and judges to rule and pass sentence upon the increasing number of cases. The judiciary system should ensure that cases are handled in a timely fashion and fairly. That way it would ensure all persons, who have been accused, a right to a quick and fair trial. The threat of terrorism has become a continuous global threat. India should take further measures in the future to prevent further instances by admitting and enforcing stricter laws and penalties against any act of or relating to terrorism. Frankly, this country cannot afford not to be more proactive against this outbreak of national and world wide terrorism. India’s court system declares that a “criminal justice system could not function without the cooperation of its people.” (Lawyers, Journos, not Separate Class, 2003, December 16). It takes effort on behalf of the government and the general public to make a criminal justice system work smoothly and effective. References Adawal, Dr. Shanker. (2006, April 2). Human rights and criminal justice system. Boloji.com. Retrieved December 2, 2006, from http://www.boloji.com/analysis2/0111.htm Batra, Bikram Jeet. (2003, December). Criminal justice system “reforms” II. India Together. Retrieved December 1, 2006, from http://www.indiatogether.org/2003/dec/hrt-2malimath.htm Country reports on terrorism. (2006, April 28). U.S. Department of State. Retrieved December 3, 2006,from http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/64345.htm Country study: India. (2005, November 8). The Library of Congress. Retrieved December 3, 2006 from http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/intoc.html India. (2006, November 30). The World Factbook. Retrieved December 3, 2006, from https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html India. (2006, December 3). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 1, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India India: the criminal justice system. (1995, September). Photius Coutsoukis. Retrieved December 3, 2006, from http://www.photius.com/countries/india/national_security/india_national_security_the_criminal_justice~192.html High courts of India. (2006, September 7). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 1, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Courts_of_India Lawyers, journos, not separate class. (2003, December 16). SifyHosting. Retrieved December 4, 2006, from http://sify.com/fullstory.php?id=13337689 Ministry of law and justice. (2006, December 1). Government of India: Ministry of Law and Justice. Retrieved December 2, 2006 from http://lawmin.nic.in/About.htm My support for POTA was a serious mistake. (2004, July 16). The Hindu. Online edition. Retrieved December 4, 2006, from http://www.hindu.com/2004/07/16/stories/2004071604521100.htm Naxalite. (2006, November 29). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 3, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naxalite&oldid=90839242 O’ Connor, Dr. Tom. (2006, May 6). What is Criminal Justice? Mega Links in Criminal Justice. Retrieved December 2, 2006, from http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/111/111lect01.htm POTA a lame law to fight terrorism: Togadia. (2002, March 31). Rediff.com. Retrieved December 3, 2006, from http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/31pota.htm Prevention of terrorism act passed. (2002, March 28). Asian Human Rights Commission- Religious Groups for Human Rights. Retrieved December 3, 2006, from http://www.rghr.net/mainfile.php/0414/233 Raghaven, R.K. (n.d.) India. World Factbook of Criminal Justice Systems. Retrieved December 3, 2006, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wfbcjind.txt Terrorism in India. (2006, November 24). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 3, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism_in_India&oldid=89790512 Terrorism in Kashmir. (2006, November 27). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 2, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism_in_Kashmir&oldid=90460272 Read More