Jf.

I Golden Jubilee 1956-2006 ^^^^^^^^^^^| International Conference : Criminal Justice Under Stress

PROTECTION OF H U M A N RIGHTS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

KtdjitKaur*

I INTRODUCTION

H u m a n Rights are those rights which every individual has by virtue of his birth as a human being.
Naturally they are inherent and inalienable. In every walk of life today, the individual is threatened with the
possibility of violation of his human rights not only by other fellow individuals but also by societal institutions
established with the solemn purpose of safeguarding rights of all.
The end of the twentieth century has given a m o m e n t u m to the human rights movements in the new
millennium. Indeed, human rights have become the socio-political normative language of the new era.
H u m a n rights are those minimal rights, which every individual must have by virtue of his being a member of
human family, irrespective of any other consideration. They are based o n mankind's demand for a life in
which the inherent dignity of human being will receive respect and consideration. T h e Universal Declaration
of H u m a n Rights clearly states that respect to human rights and human dignity is "the foundation of freedom,
peace and justice in the world". Indeed, denial of h u m a n rights and fundamental freedom is not only an
individual and personal tragedy, but also creates conditions of chaos in the society. The Criminal Justice
System consisting of Police, Judiciary and Correctional Institutions play a major role in implementing human
rights and thereby protect and safeguard the human rights of the citizens of a country. But, violence in
police custody and prisons go against the tenets of h u m a n rights. Despite frequent intervention of the
judiciary to control these excesses, such incidents of human rights violations have been increasing.
T h e extent to which h u m a n rights are respected and protected within the context of its criminal
proceedings is an important measure of society's civilization. That is a simple proposition which few people
are likely to dispute. But it is one of those statements which leave a number of other questions unanswered.
What are the human rights which are to be protect within our criminal procedure? A n d more importantly, to
what extent should the human rights of the suspect and the accused be protected when other important
interests of society are under attack and in possible conflict with the interest of the accused? These are
difficult questions to answer, because there is a perpetual conflict between the interest of the accused and
the fundamental interest of the society. Over-emphasis on the protection of one interest is bound to have an
adverse impact on the other and, therefore, an even balance has to be struck between the two interests. This
task in a democracy governed by the rule of law is entrusted to the judiciary and it is the judiciary which has
to find a dividing line so as to harmonise the two interests without over-emphsising one to the detriment of
the other. This is by n o means an easy task. By nd large the Supreme Court has, through progressive and
humanistic interpretation, enlarged the rights of the suspect and the accused with a view to protecting the
interest of the innocent and preventing abused or misuse of police powers.

Of course, the development of law by the Supreme Court in this direction has evoked criticism from
certain quarters but this criticism is not based on any empirical research. It proceeds on a pre-conceived
notion that any protection given to a suspect or accused is bound to injure the interest of the society by
encouraging crime and making its detection difficult, if n o t possible. Unfortunately, in our country, there is
not much of socio-legal or empirical research particularly in the field of criminology, with the result that our

Reader and Head, Department of Laws, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amristar-143 005.
 II [ Golden Jubilee 195'> 2006 ^^^^^^^^^^8 International ("onterciiLC - < .runinal |u-iicc l. mlcr Sires-

criticism of the law as interpreted and evolved by the courts is often not founded on factual or sociological
data but is based only on certain ingrained attitudes and misconceptions. It is necessary that mere should be
socio-legal research in various areas of criminal law so as to afford guidance to the courts in their none-too-
easv task of laying down the law which would best sub serve the interest of the society, without sacrificing
the interest of the innocent.

II EVOLUTION O F HUMAN RIGHTS I N INDIA

Articles 9 to 12 of Universal Declaration of H u m a n Rights 1 and Article 10 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights 2 lays down a basic minimum standard of treatment to which system of criminal
justice of every country must conform. F r o m these provisions the following conclusions emerge:
1. Everybody who is deprived of his liberty should be treated with humanity, i.e. with respect for
the inherent dignity of human person. Indian Constitution of Article 21 guarantees right to life
and personal liberty. Supreme Court of India has held repeatedly that 'life' in Article 21 means
life with human dignity.3
2. N o one should be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 21 of the Constitution
of India provides that no person shall be deprived of life and personal liberty except according to
procedure prescribed by law. Since the decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union
of India4 the procedure under Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable and cannot be arbitrary,
unfair or unreasonable.
3. Everyone charged with a penal offence has a right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty in
a pubic trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. Indian criminal

Art. 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 10: Everyone is entitled to full equality
to a fair and pubic hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations
and of any criminal charge against him.
Art. 11: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according
to law in public trial at which he has had all the guarantee necessary for his defense. N o one shall be held guilty of
any penal offence on account of any act or commission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or
international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was
applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Art. 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to
attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference
or attacks.
Art. 10: All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human
person:
(a) Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons and
shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvinced persons;
(b) Accused juvenile persons shall be separated from adults and brought as speedily as possible for
adjudication.
The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation
and social rehabilitation.
See Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746.
AIR 1978 SC 597.
 I (i'.liiill IllUl'lrc <-2" InrcniMniial I oiifrrcncc- : Criminal Justice Under Stress

jurisprudence is based on this cardinal principle. 5

4. N o one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not
constitute penal offence at the time, when it was committed. Indian Constitution also provides
that n o person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of law in force at the time of
the commission of the act charged as an offence nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that
which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the
offence. 6
5. N o o n e should be subjected t o arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, h o m e or
correspondence. Such a right was recognized by the Supreme Court under Article 21 of the
Constitution in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.7 and after Maneka Gandhi's case it is firmly established
that p r o c e d u r e m u s t be fair and reasonable which by implication prohibits such arbitrary
interference.
6. Accused person, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from those w h o have been
convicted and be treated separately. Similarly, juvenile persons should be separated from adults
and accorded treatment appropriate to their age and status. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration,8
the Supreme Court held that keeping of under trial prisoners, w h o are presumed to be innocent,
with convicts offends test of reasonableness under Article 19 or fairness under Article 21. In
Sheela Barse v. Union of India,9 Supreme Court emphasized that children should not be confined to
jails because it has dehumanizing effect and is harmful to growth and development of children.
T h e court also ordered that where a complaint is filed or a First Information Report is lodged
against a child below the age of 16 years for an offence punishable with imprisonment of not
more than 7 years the investigation should be completed within 3 months and if investigation is
not completed within 3 months the case against the child should be treated as closed.
7. T h e aim of Penitentiary system is primarily reformation and rehabilitation of criminals. In recent
years efforts have been made in this direction also. However, still much needs to be done in this
regard.
Thus, Indian Constitution as illustrated by a n u m b e r of decisions of the Supreme Court provide for
protection of human rights in conformity with the international standards. 10 T h e H u m a n Rights Commission
Act, 1993 provides for constitution of National and State H u m a n Rights Commissions to enquire into
complaints of violations of human rights and inefficiency on the part of the G o v e r n m e n t machinery in
preventing such violations and to suggest measures for effective implementation of guarantees provided by
the Constitution and various laws of the country. 11

5
See Indian Evidence Act, s 101. P. Ramanatha Aiyer , Code of Criminal Procedure (6th ed.) 1956 (1996). In Raj Gopal of
T.N. (1994) 6 SCC 632 Supreme Court has categorically held that right to privacy is implicit in right to life and
personal guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
6
Art. 20(1).
7
AIR 1963 SC 1295.
8
AIR 1980 SC 1579.
9
AIR 1986 SC 1773.
1(1
See Saheli Women's Resource Centre v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi, AIR 1990 SC 513; Nilbati Behera v. State of Orissa
(1993) 2 SCC 746.
11
See Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 185 which led to amendments of Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Evidence Act, 1972.
 I l l Golden Jubilee 1956-2006 ^^^^^^^^^H IntcniJtional ("'inference : Criminal [UMIO I mlc-r Si n--.

I l l PRESENT SITUATION
Our criminal justice is archaic, obsolete and oppressive, as it is comes under heavy criticism when
issues of human rights are raised at national and international fora. When the criticism comes from our own
human rights activists, scholars, writers, media persons, the chieftains of criminal justice system maintain
discreet silence, but when the criticism comes from international (alien) sources, like Amnesty International,
World Watch, etc., there are strong rebuttals bordering on contemptuous disregard of allegations. T h e fact
of the situation is that both silence and rebuttals are often unfortunate and uncalled for. T h e tragedy of the
situation is that two-third of the criminal justice system comprising of policy and prisons quite often violate
human rights and perpetuates human wrongs, and the tiny one-third the judiciary (largely through apex court)
tries to protect and promote human rights. T h e two sub-systems blame the apex court and some of its h u m a n
rights minded judges as bleeding-heart liberals, impractical idealists, arm-chair theoreticians, etc. T h e Court
on the contrary, churns out judgments and judgments, which fret at the derelictions of police and prisons.
The result is that our system of criminal justice has a double face; one hurts and the other tries to heal.
In a crisis that characterizes our criminal justice system, we have, with all good intentions, created an
O m b u d s m a n - the National H u m a n Rights Commission to remedy the situation and attend to pressing
problems of the country's human rights front. Like the apex court, the Commission too has a crowded
agenda, and hence any sense of euphoria is misplaced. 12
There are two facets of the reality, one is rhetorical and the other is real. T h e rhetorical part entails:
(i) Enumeration of constitutional guarantees having imprints of h u m a n rights.
(ii) Citation of judicial pronouncements making new and innovative holdings on matters concerning
the infringement of human rights; and
(iii) Reiteration of the provisions of substantial and procedural laws likewise, the reality part entails:
(a) Toleration of human rights violations;
(b) Cover-up exercise to counter criticism, and
(c) Emboldened attitude of human rights violators and the utter helplessness of the victims.
Let us look at the reality little more closely. There are umpteen numbers of reports on chilling human
rights abuses of pre-emergency era and emergency era, which have emanated from indigenous sources. Why
then blame international sources like L o n d o n based Amnesty International and Washington based World
Watch Institute in particular? T h e successive inflow of these reports describes continuing patterns of abuse
in the administration of criminal justice in the country. T h e reports mainly focus on torture, including rape
and deaths in custody. T h e reports criticize practices that are blatantly unconstitutional. T h e country confronts
an embarrassing situation, both within and outside, because human rights abuses have become commonplace
and a sense of hopelessness marks our thought and reaction. Justice Krishna Iyer describes our human rights
record as "testing illusion and promise of unreality". The Supreme Court, the sentinel of human rights, has
been able to bring out only cosmetic changes since its directives to police, prisons and other institutions and
more honoured in breach than in observance. For indigent and illiterate victims of human rights abuses the
Writ Courts are too remote and too expensive to be of any avail. T h e rights now granted by the courts are of
illusory in absence of implementation and enforcement. Justice Krishna Iyer wrote more an anger than in
anguish:

12
Dr. R. Thilagarj: Human Rights and CriminalJustice Administration 4 (2002).
 II.I Golden Jubilee 1956-2006 Inti-matir'nal Conference : Criminal Justice Under Stress

"Rights, however, solemnly proclaimed and entrenched in great instruments are but printed futility
unless a puissant judiciary armed with legal authority. Remedial process and jurisdiction, operational and
pragmatic, transforms the jurisprudence of human rights into public law of enforceable justice.
H u m a n rights regime leaves a wide gap between normative claims and implementation capabilities.
The result is that large-scale breaches of civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural
rights mark the scenario".

IV T H E PRINCIPAL SECTORS O F HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

I N T H E CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Crime
Crimes have increased and also their variety. T h e increase in crime is because of the combined
contribution of socio-politico-economic factors. Some reasons, which can be said, are increase in population,
increase in the unemployment and denial of opportunities to a certain section of people.
Organized crimes have increased. Organized gangs have such control on finances, weapons and
communication; such crimes have emerged as a serious challenge not only to the police but also to the
existence of civilized society itself. In general, organized crime corrodes the social, economic and political
fabric of the society. T h e extent of terror, which the organized gangs inflict on the society, is alarming. These
gangs are also responsible for large-scale corruption in social and economic institutions. This could go to any
extent in ruthless pursuit of its criminal activates and profit motive like starting a misinformation war through
the media against the victim. T h e threat potential of organized crime is thus pervasive. T h e worrying factor
is that there is a linkage between organized criminals and terrorists. Terrorists from across the border utilize
the resources of organized gangs for their benefit. This is posing a threat to the national security itself.

Police
Policing in a democratic society is seen as upholding the dignity of the individual by safeguarding the
constitutional and legal rights. Democracy gets threatened when the police cease to respect the legal and
constitutional rights of the citizens and persistently disregard the due process of law. It is a known fact that
a common complainant of crime is rudely received in the police stations and is treated with discourtesy,
indifference and indignity. T h e use of third degree methods, torture, to be precise, is an accepted practice of
the police m e t h o d o l o g y of interrogating the accused. While being widely recognized as a violation of
fundamental rights, and whilst being forbidden under the law, the torture is pervasive and routine in our
police stations. T h e main reason why police malpractices of the olden days persist and are practiced, is that
the system protects them from being punished for their human rights infringements. T h e victims of police
perversions are almost always are the disadvantaged sections of society w h o are incapable of legitimate self-
defence. In the garb of combating criminality, the police take law into their hands and trample upon the basic
human rights of the crime-suspects. T h e abominable records of police deviance is reflected in the encounter
deaths, and the rapes and deaths in the police custody. These no doubt, are the cruellest forms of human
rights violations. Ironically, a sharp rise in such forms of abuses and excesses by police take place with
sickening regularity despite the India's ratification in June 1997, the International Convention against Torture
and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment. Nothing is more revolting that
the betrayal of the custodial trust by the guardians of law.
 ILI Golden jubilee 1956-2006 International Conference : Cximui.il IUMIO-1 wler Stn:.

The basic cause of the malaise is rooted in the Police Act of 1861, which has all the manifestations of
a repressive colonial force. There has been often organized effort to change the police culture; it still has
some awesome powers, which are misused. To cut a long story short, our police have become so impervious
to judicial inquiries and court structures that it continues to behave in a recalcitrant manner and refuses to
follow the human rights mandate.

Courts
Courts have limitations. It is only when a matter is placed before them that courts can take interest and
monitor investigation. The court has a jurisdiction only upon what is presented by the police as evidence.
The Criminal Judicial System in the c o m m o n law tradition is based on the twin principals of penal
policy, the presumption of innocence and the requirement that the criminal charge needs to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. T h e golden rule of criminal law was that ten guilty may go free but not even one innocent
person should suffer.
The Criminal Judicial System depends principally on the trustworthiness of its witnesses. In oral evidence
the witnesses continue to be the plank on which prosecution rests. T h e quality of human material and the
trustworthiness of witnesses have increasingly come under stress. Witnesses are primed or intimidated and a
large n u m b e r of acquittals take place on account of witness turning hostile and failing to support the
prosecution case of the trial. There is need to improve the quality of forensic expertise and make it truly a
system for promotion of justice.
Another weakness is the prosecution. The Prosecutor should be appointed on merit; which often does
not happen. Competent prosecutors who are again politically neutral should be appointed. The prosecution
has the obligation of fair disclosure which means the prosecution should place before the court all factors
even including that which is in favour of the accused. It has to place the truth in the court. Let the court
come to a judgment. Neither padding nor embellishments should be done with the facts.

Prisons
Prisons, like police, are n o less n o less guilty of human rights violations. T h e reality can be gauged only
by visiting prisons. Instances of prison injustice abound and the penal regime has not changed much despite
two-dozen reports on prison reform, including the Mulla Committee report. T h e report's introductory chapter
beings with following observation:

"Prison administration in India has been off and on a subject of criticism in the press, parliament and
judiciary. Overcrowding in prisons, prolonged detention of under trail prisoners, unsatisfactory living conditions,
lack of treatment programmes and allegations of indifferent and even in human approach of prison staff
have repeatedly attracted the attention of the over the years."

The unfortunate part of the story is that breaches of human right persist.

In Hussainara Khotoon's case, the Supreme Court observed: 13

AIR 1979 SC 1360.

 ILI Golden Jubilee 1956-2006 International Conference : Criminal Justice Under Stress^

"It is a crying shame on the judicial system which permits incarceration of men and women for long
period of time. We are shouting from housetops about the protection and enforcement of human rights. We
are talking passionately and eloquently about the maintenance and preservation of basic freedoms. But are
we not denying right to these nameless persons who are languishing is jails for years for offences which
perhaps they might ultimately be found not to have committed? Are we not withholding basic freedom from
these neglected and helpless human for years? Are expeditions trail and freedom from detention not part of
human right and basic freedoms"

If the conditions in prisons are violative of h u m a n rights, the conditions in custodial/ correctional
institutions for w o m e n and children are equally bad. The fact of the matter is that imprisoned women the
children in these so-called correctional institutions are often subject to intolerable treatment and specific
forms of torture impermissible in the country's h u m a n rights agenda, justice Krishna Iyer is right when he
says, "these institutions and not inmates are the criminals". The situation could be summed up in one
sentence: the human rights violations in custodial and correctional institutions (the kinds of which we have;,
are not stray phenomena, but widespread and deep-rooted in the system.

State
State, the so-called protector of human rights in the country appears to be the biggest violator. The
coercive processes of the State machinery corrode the foundations of human rights. Increasing concentration
of power the hand of the executive has become alarming. We are witnessing the might and the dominance of
the State tn its myriad forms. Many human rights activists and civil liberty organizations have condemned the
Central and State Government for their deplorable disregard of fundamental freedoms and human dignity.
The despotic proclivity of the authorities has rendered the State as an oppressor of the poor. The worst part
is that State terrorism is taken as an answer for private terrorism. While the terrorism of the extremists is
reprehensible, loathsome and condemnable, State terrorism, army vices and police excesses deserver to be
repress the protestors, dissenters and the rebels w h o arise voice against State violence is a real danger to
democracy. We witness everyday the terrifying presence of State violence to attain one single aim: to subjugate
people and constantly seek legitimacy of its totally immoral and illegal acts. H o w many innocent lives are
lost through police and army adventures in Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and in other states
is a question that needs 'he answer from the authorities.
The hard fact in regard to human right violations by the State organs, i.e., police, militan and paramilitary
forces is that human rights for them is rhetorical and not a real issue: Neither the issue appears on the agenda
of various parties, nor State wants to expand its time and recourses to stop human right violations by its
agents and official organs.

Others
In between the violators and the victims of human rights abuses; we have a set of committed human
rights activists, civil liberty organizations, media persons and academics. These people react when brazen
and bizarre incidents of human rights violations occur. They make speeches; write articles and books, and
present papers in seminar and conferences. The impact of these crying angles is precious little, with no
j l | l Golden Jubilee 1956-2006 | ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ International Conference:: Criminal Justice Under Stress

lasting dent on the situation. There are also the spokespersons in the Government, the window-dressers, w h o
issue denials, play with plagiarized phrases: coin excuses or use strategically chosen words to preserve the
status quo. When pushed to wall ,they make promise to look into the incident, or at best order magisterial
inquiries, which take long time to materialize and complete. After months and years the reports are submitted,
which again are looked into to examine and finalize action to be taken. Since, in the meanwhile the hue and
cry subsides, the reports are consigned to office archives. T h e exercise is repeated again when any other
scandalous incident of human rights violation takes place. And the game goes on. T h e only ray of hope in the
dark clouds of distress and disappointment is the institution of judiciary, i.e., Supreme Court.

V SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING T H E SYSTEM O F CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Scientific Investigation
Now-a-days it is not an easy task to get-witnesses in criminal cases, particularly where the criminal is a
notorious one. It is n o secret that criminals can harm witnesses, who appear against them. Thus a person with
first hand knowledge of the facts of a crime would like to keep himself away and avoid being dragged to a
court of law for giving evidence. Besides this, crimes are often committed secredy in a well-planned manner
so that there may not be any direct evidence against the offender. Under these circumstances, it is imperative
to have strong and intelligent investigating agency capable of using modern tools. Various techniques, such
as physical examination of the accused, medical examination of the victim, comparison of finger prints, foot
prints, photographs and writing, use of tape records, forensic ballistics, wiretapping and other means of
electronic surveillance, lie detectors and truth serums are used. The investigator must be equipped with the
necessary apparatus and technical knowledge to use these means. The probative value of scientific evidence
will depend upon the cogency of reasons on which it is based, 14 and competency of the expert to form
reliable opinion. 15 T h e probative value will be less if opinions of two experts on the same matter are different.
Similarly, where opinion of an expert is in conflict with other evidence it is not necessary that expert opinion
should prevail. In case of conflict the court must closely examine the evidence before, acting upon it.
The evidence obtained by scientific investigation may also be excluded on grounds, of violation of the
provisions of the Evidence Act or restrictions prescribed by the Constitution. 16 There was some controversy
with regard to whether evidence of signatures, finger prints, etc. should be excluded for violation of Article
20(3) of the Constitution. 17 The Supreme Court held that in Article 20(3) "to be witness" means to impart
knowledge about relevant facts by an oral or written statement made or given in the court or otherwise, but
giving of t h u m b impression or impression of foot, palm or finger or specimen writing or signature or showing
parts of the body by way of identification are not included in the expression "to be a witness" in Article
20(3). 18 Court thus upheld the validity of Section 73 of the Evidence Act. It also upheld the validity of
Section 27 of the Act, which permits evidence of facts' discovered in consequence of information received
from a person accused of an offence, in the custody of a police officer, even if such information amounts to
confession. 19

14
Saalain Ahmed Y. Emperor, AIR 1936 ALL. 165.
15
Emperor v. Sahadeo, 15 Cr, L.J. 220, 230.
"' Particularly Arts. 20 and 21.
1
Art. 20(3) provides that "no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be witness against himself".
18
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu, AIR 1961 SC 1808.
19
State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya AIR 1960 SC 1125: State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu, AIR 1961 SC 1808. But see
dissenting opinion of Subba Rao, J (as he then was) in Deoman's case.
 ILI Golden Jubilee 1956-2006 International Conference : Criminal Justice Under Stress

With regard to admissibility of illegally obtained evidence the Supreme Court held in State of Maharashtra
v. Natwarlal Damodardas Sonf" that assuming that the search was illegal, it did not affect the validity of the
seizure and its admissibility in evidence. At the most the court may be inclined to examine carefully the
evidence relating to the seizure. Similar views have been expressed by the Supreme Court in other cases.21 As
to admitting evidence obtained by modern technology also the attitude of the Supreme Court has been
positive though rightly suspicious. For instance, it has welcomed evidence of superimposed photographs 2 2
mechanical devices of reproduction of oral evidence, etc. 23 But while accepting the evidence of tape-record
the Court pointed out that the evidence must be received with caution. The court must be satisfied beyond
reasonable doubt that there has been no tampering. 24

Responsible Police
The police, the Government and the society each have a role to plav in improving the law enforcement
situation and in developing a human rights-friendlv police in the country. A lot can be accomplished to
change public perceptions and to improve the standards of policing if the leadership in the police organization
is fully committed to reform. After all, every profession has the primary responsibility to discipline its members
and maintain a code of ethical behaviour by internal mechanisms bv peer groups in the organization.
Organizational behaviour is largely the outcome of training and continuing education. Police training is
archaic in content and methods. The emphasis is still more on muscle than on mind. H u m a n Rights, if at ail,
form an insignificant module in the training program and there is hardly anything on human rights in the
training of constables w h o form 8 5 % of the force. Respect for human rights is not rewarded. If the leadership
itself is doubtful about the imperatives of human rights in policing and if they disregard its importance in the
training of subordinate officers, what is the point in expecting change in the behaviour of the ordinary sub-
inspectors and constables.
All sections of society, and more particularly the media, can help improve the status and efficiency of
the police force. At least, they can afford not to disparage the police without rhyme or reason. If they can
extend co-operation in law enforcement, there is bound to be a welcome response from the other side, which
eventually will result in greater social defence and better law and order situation. People and Police ought not
to maintain an adversarial relationship as it harms both. There are black sheep in every organization; it is in
isolating them and in cultivating the talented that right thinking sections of the communitv, the media and
the N G O s have a significant role to play. In such a partnership lies the guarantee of human protection, the
security of life and property and a credible system of criminal justice in the country.

Speedy Process
Though speedy trial has been recognized as fundamental right because it is requirement of fair procedure
under Article 2 1 , yet the delay in administration of criminal justice is a c o m m o n affair. Delay is both at the

20
AIR 1980 SC 593.
21
See Bat Radha v. State of Gujarat AIR. 1970 SC 1936: R.M. Malkamx. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 157.
22
Ram Lochan Ahirx. State of W.B., AIR 1963 SC 1074.
2
' Yusuffaii v. State of Maharshtra AIR 1968 SC 147; Kama Reddi v. I A ". Gin, AIR 1971SC 1162.
24
Id. "
 1LI Golden Jubilee 1956-2006 International Conference : Criminal Justice Under Stress

stage of investigation and prosecution as well as in trial. There is necessity of prescribing some time limit for
each process as Supreme Court has done in Sheela Barse v. Union of lndicr\ Of course, time limit should not
be unreasonable or rigid because justice delayed is justice denied so also justice buried is justice hurried. A
balance between the two extremes is advisable.

Uniform Policy by the Government

To prevent human rights violations, it is suggested that an official declaration of uniform policy by the
governments that violations of Human Rights of accused by law enforcement be formulated. Governments
should also enact strict law to punish the perpetrators of human rights violations. Governments should also
take prompt corrective action in case of human rights violations.

Protection M e c h a n i s m should be strong

Mechanism for protecting human right of accused at the International, national and regional levels
must be strengthened, States should not shield themselves from International Scrutiny on the issue of human
rights. Every state must constitute an effective agency for investigations and inquiring into and redressing
violations of human rights. Governments should ratify the international human rights treaties protecting the
human rights and fundamental freedoms of accused. States should provide an effective framework of remedies
for the redressal of human rights violations. Investigating agencies, prosecuting agencies, judiciary and legal
profession should make efforts to prevent the human rights violations of accused by giving him proper and
appropriate legal aid.

Role of N o n - G o v e r n m e n t a l Organization
States should recognize the world of non-governmental organizations in the promotion of human
rights and humanitarian activities at international, national and regional levels. States should provide assistance
to Non-Governmental Organization and other members involved in the field of human rights.

VI CONCLUSION
The challenge before India is to develop human rights in its domestic caminal administration by upgrading
its law-enforcement machinery, and on the other hand not to be swayed away at the cost of social development
and nation's unity. T h e establishment of National H u m a n Rights Commission can contribute if, instead of
becoming a face-saving device against international criticism of human rights conditions, it dedicates itself
sincerely to the detection of human rights violations in crime control activity and activates itself towards
corrective and remedial steps. A reconciliation lies in improving the domestic culture of human rights which
in turn will replenish our image in the international platform also.
Thus it can be concluded that in order to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of accused,
we must generate an awareness for human rights in people's mind, otherwise, the concept of human right will
zigzag one step forward, and two steps back.

25
AIR 1986 SC 1773.