SC fiat to HCs, state govts to improve criminal justice system

In a step aimed at improving the criminal justice system, the Supreme Court today asked all the states and high courts to come up with suggestions to arrive at a general consensus on the need to amend criminal manuals to bring about "uniform best practices" across the country.
The apex court decided to take up the matter on its own while hearing a criminal appeal related to a case in Kerala.
A bench comprising Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao passed the order when senior counsel R Basant, appearing for one of the parties in the appeal, referred to "certain common inadequacies and deficiencies in the course of trials adopted by the trial courts while disposing of criminal cases".

"In the circumstances, we direct that notices be issued to the registrars general of all the high courts and the chief secretaries/the administrators and the advocates general/ senior standing counsel of all the states/Union territories, so that general consensus can be arrived at on the need to amend the relevant rules of practice/criminal manuals to bring about uniform best practices across the country," the bench said.
"This court may also consider issuance of directions under Article 142 of the Constitution. They can be given the option to give suggestions also on other areas of concern," it said.
It observed that particularly, it was pointed out by the counsel that though there were beneficial provisions in the rules of some of the high courts which ensure that documents like list of witnesses and list of exhibits referred to, were annexed to the judgment and order of the trial court, "these features do not exist in rules of some other high courts".

Giving details of the specific issues flagged by the

senior lawyer, the apex court noted that he has highlighted "pernicious practice of the trial judge leaving the recording of deposition to the clerk concerned.
"Recording of evidence goes on in more than one case in the same courtroom, at the same time, under the presence and general supervision of the presiding officer which has to be disapproved strongly and discontinued forthwith."
The advocate has suggested that "the deposition of witnesses must be recorded in typed format, using computers, in courts on the dictation of the presiding officers (in English wherever possible) so that readable true copies can be available straightaway and issued to both sides on the date of examination itself."

The court noted his contention that deposition of each witness must be recorded parawise to facilitate easy reference to specific portions later in the course of arguments and also in the judgments.
Every judgement must mandatorily have a preface showing the name of the parties and an appendix showing the list of prosecutions witnesses, prosecution exhibits, defence witnesses, defence exhibits, court witnesses, court exhibits and material objects, he has said.
The practice of referring to names of the accused/ witnesses and documents descriptively in the proceedings paper and judgements creates a lot of confusion, he has said, adding that repetition of pleadings, evidence and arguments in the judgements and orders of trial courts, appellate and revisional courts should be avoided.