India’s criminal justice system faces deep structural flaws, from low conviction rates to weak investigations. Former CJI U U Lalit calls it “the most neglected sphere” and urges urgent reforms to prevent misuse of laws and protect the innocent.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: India’s criminal justice system is under severe strain, and recent remarks by former Chief Justice of India U U Lalit have brought long-standing problems back into the spotlight. Speaking at an event organised by the Ekam Nyaay Foundation, the former CJI described the current state of criminal justice administration as “perhaps the most neglected sphere in the apparatus of government.”
His observations outline a grim reality: low conviction rates, flawed investigation procedures, misuse of criminal laws, and an urgent need for structural reforms.
ALSO READ: “Right to Education is the Most Impactful Affirmative Action in India”: Ex-CJI U U Lalit
One of the strongest points Lalit highlighted is the shockingly low conviction rate. He stated that the conviction rate in criminal matters “remained at around 20 per cent,” and in certain categories, “the rate of conviction is less than 5 per cent.”
This means that a significant proportion of undertrial prisoners eventually walk free.
As he explained,
“four out of the five undertrials languishing in prisons were bound to be eventually acquitted.”
This not only shows the inefficiency of the system but also raises moral concerns about who ends up jailed and why.
Lalit stressed that Indian police officers are overburdened and poorly equipped, noting that they “did not have the kind of professional equipment or education that the force deserved.”
He strongly supported reforms mentioned in the Prakash Singh (2006) judgment, especially the need to separate investigation from routine policing. As he put it,
“the very same police officer does not double up as the person in charge of law and order and the one taking up the mantle as an investigator.”
Without this separation, investigations remain weak, rushed, and vulnerable to error.
ALSO READ: ‘Constitution Not Permanent’: CJI BR Gavai Echoes Ambedkar’s Vision for Continuous Reform
The former CJI pointed out serious procedural issues in the way witness statements are recorded. Referring to statements collected by the police, he observed that
“these statements are never signed, and many of the statements are resiled from when the matter reaches trial.”
This undermines the entire prosecution process. Unsigned statements create inconsistencies that defence lawyers exploit, leading to acquittals even in cases where the crime may have actually occurred.
Lalit expressed concern about the rising misuse of certain criminal provisions. He stated candidly, “I won’t like my daughters to live in that environment where, perhaps, there is the slightest chance that the laws can be misused.”
He specifically pointed to the misuse of rape laws in relationship disputes, noting that young couples often enter relationships willingly. Later, when things go wrong, allegations arise that
“on the pretext or promise to marry, I was taken advantage of.”
These cases, he said, occupy the grey zones of consent and often convert personal disputes into criminal charges.
By illustrating a lawyer’s witty analogy, Lalit highlighted how innocent people are often dragged through the system:
“10 years of running after that so-called mice, and finally, it turns out that it was not a mouse, but it was a rabbit.”
This metaphor reflects a deeper issue — the system often exhausts resources chasing the wrong person. And by the time the case ends, the wrongly accused is “left a sort of huffing and panting.”
Lalit insisted that society owes such persons “what is legally and morally due to them.”
According to the former CJI, reforms must take place at multiple levels: investigation, trial, and judicial oversight. He suggested that in cases of false complaints, “the charge of false or malicious prosecution should not be left for a second kind of trial,” but should be addressed immediately based on the court’s findings.
He emphasised the need for what he called “amrit manthan”, a deep churning of ideas to rebuild faith in the justice system. Only then can India hope to create a fair, effective, and trustworthy criminal justice framework.
Read More Reports On Ex-CJI U U Lalit
