The Supreme Court’s intervention aims to reform criminal investigations and prosecutions through coordinated efforts, strict timelines, and stronger witness protection mechanisms, as Justices M.M. Sundresh and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh examine systemic gaps hindering effective justice delivery across India.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court mark a crucial step towards addressing systemic failures in criminal investigations and prosecutions. By involving States, Union Territories, the Union Government, and judicial authorities, the Court is attempting to build a coordinated and transparent framework.
With strict timelines, emphasis on witness protection, and institutional cooperation, the case has the potential to bring lasting reforms to India’s criminal justice system and ensure that justice is not defeated by procedural shortcomings.
The case is being heard by a Division Bench comprising of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh. The Bench is examining the structural and institutional gaps in criminal trials that prevent effective delivery of justice.
The suo motu proceedings originated from repeated instances where serious criminal cases failed due to Poor investigation, Inadequate prosecution, Hostile witnesses, Lack of witness protection, Selective presentation of evidence and Administrative inefficiency
Over the years, courts have observed that many acquittals occur not because the accused are innocent, but due to flawed investigation and prosecution. The present case seeks to frame uniform national guidelines to ensure accountability, transparency, and professionalism in criminal justice administration.
During the hearing, the counsel began by highlighting serious deficiencies in the present system and made strong observations on the functioning of investigating agencies and state authorities.
The counsel stated:
“Unfortunately, this is how our system presently operates. What we often see is that witnesses are selectively placed or produced, depending on convenience. Many States are reluctant to adopt stricter or more transparent processes, because such scrutiny may expose uncomfortable truths. This is my impression, of course, but it is borne out by experience.”
Referring to past professional work, the counsel further submitted:
“When I was involved in a legal aid matter relating to death sentence cases, I undertook a study under Project 39A. During that exercise, I came across three similar cases, including one from Madhya Pradesh, all involving allegations of rape and murder of minors.”
These submissions highlighted how investigation failures can have grave consequences, particularly in serious crimes involving vulnerable victims.
The Court appointed an amicus curiae to assist in examining deficiencies and proposing reforms. The amicus undertook an exhaustive study covering Police investigation procedures, Prosecutorial practices, Coordination among departments, Witness handling and Compliance with statutory safeguards
The amicus placed detailed recommendations before the Court, addressing multiple stakeholders, including State Governments, Union Territories, Registrars General of High Courts, and the Union of India.
While passing interim directions, the Supreme Court noted the importance of institutional coordination.
The Court observed:
“The concept acting for various states come a unit with territory and the headquarters. We have also told the directions sought for by the amicus.”
Further, the Bench stated:
“The directions sought for, are for all the stakeholders, including the states and the unit of states, registrar generals, and the Union of India. We have an exhaustive and exercise taken by the learned amicus, for whom we place our appreciation on record.”
The Court appreciated the comprehensive work done by the amicus and acknowledged the need for system-wide reforms. A major concern raised before the Court related to non-implementation of witness protection mechanisms.
The amicus submitted that several States and Union Territories had failed to notify or implement the Witness Protection Scheme under the new criminal law framework.
The Court recorded:
“The learned amicus also submit that some of the states and union territories have not issued the warrant protection scheme as required by Section 398 of the BNSH Prison 2023.”
It was further noted that:
“The states and union territories who are not compliant with it have been shown under annexure B.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed all defaulting States and Union Territories to strictly comply with Section 398 of the BNSH Prison 2023 and implement the required witness protection mechanisms.
ALSO READ: SC Mandate: ED Must Provide Written Grounds for Arrest – Transparency Demanded
The Court fixed a timeline for compliance and implementation of its directions.
It ordered:
“We can clear up three months from the date of the disposal.”
This direction aims to ensure that States do not delay implementation and take concrete steps within a reasonable period.
To ensure effective coordination between the Centre and States, the Court also issued directions to the Union Government.
The Bench directed:
“On the directions sought for, the directly the Union of Home Affairs to facilitate a meeting with the due participation of the learned amicus and the respective representatives of the states in the event where they represent the police.”
The Court emphasized that such meetings are necessary to streamline investigative procedures and improve inter-agency cooperation.
The Court has examined systemic inadequacies in criminal investigations and prosecutions that often result in the failure of criminal trials. The case focuses on long-standing procedural lapses, weak witness protection, and lack of coordination among investigating agencies.
The proceedings underline the judiciary’s growing concern over declining conviction rates and erosion of public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Case Title: IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINE REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS (11 MA 505/2022 SMW(Crl) No. 1/2017 PIL-W)”.
Read Live Coverage: