Criminal Justice Reforms India Actually Needs (& Deserves!) (Part 1)
First published at Bar & Bench here ** Introduction The dust on the new criminal laws has not settled yet. And it won’t, if you ask me, for a very long time. Some of the amendments raise far more questions than they answer. Let alone the substantive provisions, even the ‘savings clauses’ (ironically, a clause
This book doesn’t manipulate.
Its omissions are not laziness but craft.
A strategic silence in a negotiation.
An awkward pause at dinner.
A shadow that makes the body visible.
Jill Lepore’s These Truths is a sweeping yet intimate portrait of America’s 500-year journey—its ideals, contradictions, and constant reinvention. Part history, part moral inquiry, it reminds us that democracy, like truth itself, is never settled. Reading it, one understands America—and perhaps India—just a little more deeply.
Cross-examination is not mere questioning—it is confrontation with purpose. The duty to “put one’s case” ensures fairness, prevents ambush, and tests truth itself. From Browne v. Dunn to modern Indian rulings, the law demands not silence but speech—a disciplined challenge where suggestion becomes the voice of justice.
Section 8 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 governs fines and imprisonment in default of payment — but it falls silent on what happens when a convict fails to perform community service, a new form of punishment introduced by the Code. This article highlights that silence: it neither defines how long imprisonment may last for such a default nor when it should terminate if the service is later performed. The gap may seem technical, but it strikes at the heart of fair sentencing and legislative coherence — and urgently needs rectification.
The Delhi High Court’s decision to entertain a claim for “alienation of affection” — a tort abolished across much of the world — risks pulling Indian family law back into a moralistic past. Once common in Victorian England and early-20th-century America, these so-called “heart-balm” actions were outlawed for being intrusive, unprovable, and contrary to modern notions of personal freedom. India should not revive what the world has wisely buried: the idea that love lost can, or should, be compensated in damages.
India’s trial courts decide the fate of millions yet carry nearly 90% of the backlog without any research support. Overworked judges juggle bail, dying declarations, and full trials alone. Law clerks could transform this frontline of justice — improving quality, reducing appeals, and restoring faith in the rule of law.
Drawing from experience as a young judge, Bharat Chugh critiques the push for mandatory bar experience before joining the judiciary. He argues that early judicial entry, with robust training, nurtures adjudicative skills better than a few years at the Bar—especially in a saturated, unequal profession where access isn’t guaranteed.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the right of RMSA teachers in Nagaland to equal pay for equal work, striking down arbitrary wage disparities. Reinforcing Article 14, the Court held that the State cannot justify unequal treatment based on labels like “contractual” when the work performed is identical.
Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, has triggered a wave of uncertainty. While meant to streamline procedure, its rigid interpretation risks unjust dismissals and procedural unfairness. Conflicting judicial views now demand clarity—on whether the Rule is mandatory or directory, and its prospective or retrospective effect.
New-age crimes—from deepfakes to metaverse assaults—demand an urgent rethink of our evidentiary rules and investigative methods. In this piece, Bharat Chugh explores the challenges of proving cybercrimes in court, using real-life examples and outlining a roadmap to make justice fit for the digital age.
This article examines critical defects in criminal investigations through landmark case studies, exposing how sloppy procedures and forensic lapses derail justice. Drawing from judicial pronouncements and the author’s firsthand experience, it underscores systemic issues and offers practical reforms under the new criminal codes to ensure accountability and investigative integrity.
Biometric data leaks threaten identity, privacy, and liberty — rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Drawing from the Oleum Gas Leak case, this piece argues for imposing absolute liability on corporations mishandling such sensitive data, echoing the Court’s stance: fundamental rights deserve uncompromising protection, digital or physical
Tareekh Pe Justice by Bharat Chugh spotlights India’s district courts—the real trenches of justice—through powerful storytelling, deep analysis, and a call for meaningful reform. It exposes systemic challenges and makes a compelling case for judicial independence, better evaluation metrics, and procedural integrity. A must-read for anyone invested in justice and reform.
In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that arrest without disclosing reasons violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The case exposes alarming procedural lapses and custodial misconduct, demanding structural reforms, digital safeguards, and judicial accountability to ensure transparency and protect individual liberty against arbitrary detention.
At the heart of arbitration lies the principle of consent—without it, arbitration loses its voluntary and contractual character. This article examines whether an arbitration clause in a draft agreement, exchanged during negotiations but never formally executed, can be enforced. Through key judgments such as U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. Indure Pvt. Ltd. and Orissa Stevedores Ltd. v. Orissa Mineral Development Co., the paper highlights that a mere inclusion of an arbitration clause in a draft does not constitute a binding arbitration agreement unless there is absolute and unqualified acceptance by both parties. In the absence of consensus ad idem, arbitration remains a hope—not a right.
This article explores the nuanced interplay between statutory presumptions, foundational facts, and the courts’ power to quash criminal proceedings. It analyzes how exceptions to the presumption of innocence operate in grave offences like those under POCSO and NDPS Acts, and when such presumptions can be invoked—even at the pre-trial stage. Drawing on key judgments, including the recent Just Rights for Children case, it offers a clear framework for understanding the shifting burdens of proof in serious criminal cases.
The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Prabir Purkayastha v. State has redefined arrest protocols in India by mandating the furnishing of written grounds of arrest in all cases. This article examines the judgment’s retrospective applicability, its impact on procedural safeguards under Articles 20-22, and its implications for cases under UAPA, PMLA, and routine offenses like NDPS and bribery trap cases.
Judicial reform in India has always been a fraught terrain, where idealism meets the stubborn realities of culture, language, and local politics. Among the more controversial proposals making the rounds is the creation of the All India Judicial Services (AIJS), a centralized recruitment process designed to improve efficiency and inclusivity within the judiciary. On its face, it seems an idea whose time has come. But as with many well-intentioned reforms, the question remains: will it truly address the deep-rooted issues it seeks to resolve, or will it end up compounding them?
The Blog of Bharat Chugh 