History of Criminal Laws in India

The institutions of the criminal justice administration had taken their roots during the Vedic period in India. The system gradually developed and during the Mauryan period a well- defined criminal justice system had come into existence as described in the Arthashashtra.
Legal framework during Ancient Bharat

2. Ancient texts like Arthashashtra, Manu Smriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti provided an elaborate system of Law and Justice in ancient India. The legal system in ancient India was designed to ensure justice, fairness, and adaptability to changing times, as elucidated by ancient legal luminaries like Manu, Yajnavalkya, Katyayana and Brihaspati.
3. Manu Smriti, an influential code, delineated laws under 18 principal heads, reflecting the prevailing religious, philosophical and customary practices. It encompasses aspects of modern civil and criminal branches, providing a comprehensive guide for the administration of justice according to the principles of Dharma. Distinctive features within Manu Smriti included a scale of punishments based on caste
   and mention about crimes like assault, defamation, theft etc.
4. The judges guiding the king during trials were mandated to be independent and fearless, preventing the king from making unjust decisions. As the king’s functions increased, the judicial hierarchy evolved, with strict qualifications for judges, emphasizing qualities like austerity, impartiality and integrity, concepts mentioned in the works of Katyayana.
5. Integrity was paramount, and severe punishments, including banishment from the realm, awaited corrupt judges, aligning with the principles highlighted by Brihaspati. The judiciary also incorporated jurors, learned in law, advising the king and possessing the authority to disagree with him, a principle attributed to Yajnavalkya. In criminal trials, judges decided guilt, while the king determined punishment, as illustrated in the trial scene in Mrichchhakatika.
6. The legal system placed a strong emphasis on interpreting laws, with conflicts between dharma-shastra, Arthashashtra, and custom resolved through harmonious construction or giving precedence to dharma-shastra.
7. The recognition of changing customs and the state’s duty to maintain an authenticated record reflected a forward-thinking approach advocated by ancient legal scholars.
8. The law of evidence rejected supernatural devices, focusing on discovering the truth through oral or documentary evidence. False witness was abhorred, and the judges’ moral exhortations during oaths aimed to instil the virtues of truthfulness, practice recognized by Megasthenes, Fa Hien, and Huan Tsang, all foreign travelers who noted the high virtue for truthfulness in Indian society.
9. The legal framework extended beyond trials to include administrative courts, known as Kantakasodhana Courts, dealing with offences against the state and official misconduct. The presence of an Administrative Code regulated state-run industries, taxes and public sectors, providing a comprehensive and balanced model. This holistic approach showcased an advanced understanding of governance, ensuring fairness, truthfulness, and adaptability in the ancient Indian legal system, as acknowledged by various historical references and ancient legal texts.
   Legal framework during Mughals
10. According to many authors, Mohammedan criminal law, originated from the Holy Koran. It was further expounded through Hadis (the sayings
    Restricted
    127
    of the Holy Prophet), Ijmma (analogical deductions from the text laid in the Holy Koran) and Kiyas (views of the learned scholars). When Mughal rule was established over major parts of India, naturally, Mohammedan criminal law supplanted the ancient Hindu Penal Law. The offences were largely classified into Kisa (retaliation), Hudd (specific penalties) and Tazeer (discretionary punishment), each corresponding to distinct punishments. However, the Mohammedan criminal law had its shortcomings, including the exclusion of the testimony of non- believers.
    Legal framework during British
11. During the British colonial period, the Regulating Act of 1773 established new courts like the Foujdaree Adalat, setting the stage for criminal justice reform. The subsequent introduction of the Bombay Code in 1827, under Mountstuart Elphinstone’s governance, exemplified the adaptation and supersession of indigenous laws.
12. The Charter Act of 1833 laid the groundwork for a single legislature, empowering the Governor-General to enact laws for the whole British India. Thomas Babington Macaulay, as the first law member, played a pivotal role in leading the First Indian Law Commission to draft the Indian Penal Code/IPC in the 1830s. The IPC was enacted in 1860 and was introduced to provide a legal legitimacy to
13. By the middle of the 20th Century, the British colonial model of criminal laws had become prevalent in all the Commonwealth Nations and was based on the principles of adversarial system of criminal justice.
14. The reforms in the Criminal Laws have been constantly underway. During the colonial times, apart from intermittent reforms in the major Criminal Laws, new Statutes like the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1928; The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, etc. were introduced. In the post- independence era, the reform process has taken place through intermittent new enactments, fine-tuning of existing laws and adding several new Statutes in the Criminal Laws of the country.
    Criminal Laws since Independence
15. Over the years, the need for rationalised and an updated Criminal Law has time and again called for attention of the Legislature in tune with the pace and needs of contemporary times. Any such reform, including the current three Laws, conforms to principles of constitutionalism, human rights and the fundamental rights of dignity, privacy, bodily autonomy and integrity.
16. Such reforms can broadly be categorised as piecemeal, episodic and comprehensive. In the piecemeal model, several amendments were introduced in Criminal Law from
    Restricted
    128
    time to time by adding, modifying or repealing certain provisions. Some of such examples included, among others, addition of Chapter XXA for the Criminalisation of Cruelty by Husband or his relatives; addition of Sections 153A (in 1969), Section 153B (in 1972) and Section 153AA (in 2005). The piecemeal model of reform continues to be the preferred method of reforms in the Criminal Laws.
17. Under the episodic model of reform, amendments or modifications were triggered by heinous crimes that triggered nation-wide response, and sometimes due to widespread dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system. Some of these examples were Criminal Law Reforms after the infamous Nirbhaya gangrape case in Delhi in 2012. The horrific incident and nation-wide demonstrations over this issue led to passing of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 within the shortest period of around 3 months.
18. Under the comprehensive reform model, Committees constituted by the Government of the day (example: Justice Malimath Committee of 2003) proposed series of measures for revamping the Criminal Justice System. Additionally, over the years, reforms were also introduced through several landmark decisions and opinions of higher judiciary.
19. The evolution of Criminal Justice System has been centered around two important objectives of restraining History of Criminal Laws in India criminal acts and ensuring that a just and fair procedure is adopted by the State in its actions. During the implementation of Criminal Laws, it is essential that a fine balance is struck between prerogative of the State and liberties of an individual.
    Criminal Justice System – Current Situation
20. Criminal Justice System in India after the Independence has not delivered the desired results because of certain inherent shortcomings including substandard investigation/ prosecution, large pendency of criminal cases, delayed court proceedings, delay in disposal of cases, low conviction rate and large number of undertrial prisoners. This ultimately causes denial of justice to common citizens of the country.
21. According to the Report on Crime in India, 2022 published by the National Crime Record Bureau, a total of 58,24,946 cognizable crimes comprising 35,61,379 Indian Penal Code (IPC) crimes and 22,63,567 Special & Local Laws (SLL) crimes were registered in 2022. During 2022, pendency percentage with police of IPC and SLL cases were 28 and 25.6 respectively. While pendency percentage of IPC and SLL cases with courts were 89.4 and 85.3 respectively. Unnecessary delay in deciding the criminal cases is a matter of grave concern.
    Restricted
    129
22. Of the total 26,11,526 IPC cognizable offences chrgesheeted in 2022, 16,74,821 chargesheets were submitted within three months, remaining chargesheets after 90 days including 37,828 which took more than two years. Out of a total 20,60,603 chargesheets submitted in SLL cognizable cases, 14,77,834 chargesheets were submitted within three months, remaining beyond 90 days including 36,789 cases that went beyond two years. Out of completed trial in a total of 29,91,242 IPC and SLL cases in 2022, 13,97,841were completed within one year while remaining were tried for more than one year including 41,108 cases where trial was for over 10 years. Delay in disposal of cases is contributing to overcrowding of jails. Pertinently over 75 percent jail inmates are undertrial prisoners.
23. With regards to reforms in the Criminal Laws, the Law Commission of India in its various reports has recommended section- specific amendments in the Laws. Further, Committees like Bezbaruah Committee, Vishwanathan Committee, Malimath Committee, Madhava Menon Committee, etc. made recommendations for section-specific amendments in Criminal Laws and called for general reforms in Criminal Justice System.
24. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, in its 146th Report in 2010, had History of Criminal Laws in India recommended a comprehensive review of the Criminal Justice System in the country. Earlier, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs in its 111th Report (2005) and 128th Report (2006) had called for reform and rationalisation of the Criminal Laws of the country by introducing a comprehensive legislation instead of bringing piece-meal amendments.
25. Most of the above reports pointed towards delay in investigation, inadequate use of forensic evidence in investigation, overcrowding of prisons by under-trials, very little use of technology in legal systems, delays in delivery of Justice due to complex legal procedures, large pendency of cases in the Courts, low conviction rate, etc. These issues ultimately caused delay in providing justice to the victims, particularly to the poor and vulnerable sections of the society.
26. Restricted
27. 130