The Bombay High Court in a recent order said the State government is a vital stakeholder in the criminal justice delivery system and should carry out necessary reforms and modifications on its own, and should not expect the court to supervise everything as it has its hands full.
A Division Bench of Justices S.C. Dharmadhikari and G.S. Patel was hearing a bunch of criminal petitions filed in 2011 highlighting issues that delay trials, such as not producing an accused or lack of videoconferencing units. The court was presented with names of more than 50 accused who were not produced in trial court on more than one occasion.
After being informed that many times undertrials are not produced in court due to unavailability of officials to escort them, the Bench recorded that in March 2011, another Division Bench had said, “It is for the Government to sort out difficulties that lead to non-production of accused, and if vehicles and escorts are not available, then, the Government will have to make them available.”
The court also found that videoconferencing facilities between courts and jail departments are underutilised. In February 2014, the government had told another court that videoconferencing facility had been made available in 36 jails to allow contact with jail inmates.
Advocate Niteen Pradhan, the amicus curiae, told the court, “No videoconferencing facility is available in jails situated at Latur, Ratnagiri, Sindhudurg, Gondia and Washim. The videoconferencing units are not available in courts as well as jails. However, in Arthur Road Jail and Taloja Jail, trials were conducted through Skype.”
After in-depth research on the issue, Mr. Pradhan told the court that 248 courts do not have videoconferencing facilities, while the facility had been provided to 2,200 judicial officers.
‘PILs not a remedy’
In its 27-page-order, the Bench said, “The PILs cannot be the remedy to remove all defects in the criminal justice delivery system. The delay in disposal of criminal cases is an issue which has been addressed almost at every level and has now been taken up at the national level.”
The order said, “Even though the Supreme Court is apprised of the issue, it is directing the State Governments through its orders passed from time to time to ensure that criminal trials are not delayed on account of lacklustre attitude of the State machinery. The State machinery must gear itself and appoint prosecutors, support staff, make the courts already established fully functional and operational and not just construct court buildings, but provide therein the necessary furniture, basic facilities and amenities, including videoconferencing.”
The Bench said that administration of justice, maintenance of law and order, and the defence of the country are “sovereign and regal functions” that the State cannot abdicate, much less outsource. “It is not for this Court to find out why prisoners and particularly the undertrials suffer because they are not produced on the given date and time before the trial courts.”
The court disposed of the matter by saying, “The conditions in which [undertrials] are placed in prisons and if their personal presence cannot be secured for want of staff or other reasons, whether videoconferencing should be in place, [if] at all there is a videoconferencing facility how it shall operate and function without interruption particularly by disconnection of electricity supply abruptly, are, therefore, matters which we impress upon all concerned are not and will never be taken over by this Court.”
