Change Sheet Scrutiny is not a Case of Prying Eyes
Context:
- When it allowed live telecasts of some of its hearings, India’s top court almost reached the point of no return in terms of transparency. The ruling was praised by those who want the justice system to be more open.
Recent changes:
- Decisions from the Supreme Court of India will now be translated into Hindi, Gujarati, Odia, and Tamil, according to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), because “the English language in its “legal form” is not understandable to 99.9% of the population.” is an additional measure that will improve the legal system’s accessibility.
- This makes the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the charge documents seem out of date. An accused person’s charge sheet filed in a criminal case is not a “public document” as that term is defined by the Right to Information Act of 2005 or the Indian Evidence Act, the court said. As a result, it was decided that it was unreasonable to expect that a charge sheet in a criminal case be published on a public website as soon as it is submitted in court.
- This may be considered as a setback for those pushing for greater openness in the criminal justice system because it has implications for both investigative officials and crime victims.
In defiance of a previous directive:
- The court mandated that the First Information Report (FIR) in any case be uploaded on the internet of the relevant investigating agency within 24 hours of its registration in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India (2016). The ruling initially seems to contradict that instruction.
- The public was supposed to assess this and take any required action. However, because it is based on a different legal foundation than the FIR, the charge sheet (i.e., the Final Report required by the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973) is now the Court’s view and cannot be shared with anyone other than the accused and the victim.
- This was most likely because a charge sheet contained crucial information like a list of the prosecution’s witnesses and supporting paperwork for the officer who performed the investigation, as well as a detailed account of the alleged offence.
- The top court held that even if the material will become public knowledge during the trial, revealing it prior to the start of the case would be detrimental to the defendant and the victim. The Court has emphasised that the strategy outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure does not call for the information in the final report to be made publicly available.
The world is different now:
- We have come a long way from the early years of the Constitution, when the rule of confidentiality applied to every aspect of judicial conduct. Courts were regarded as sacrosanct institutions back then, and nothing they did was open to scrutiny or criticism. Even the slightest criticism of judicial decisions could result in contempt and punishment.
- In the current context, judges are routinely criticised in the media for rendering decisions that are contrary to popular expectation and the majority opinion. Even a judge’s personal life has come up for discussion in public. In light of this, some people may disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision to keep charge papers confidential. These people are constantly trying to push the limits of judicial restraint.
- A charge sheet should be made available to the public upon request. Even if it is not needed to be posted on the court’s website, the public interest necessitates a positive response to a request to view its contents. It is true that those with specialised interests who support the defendant may attempt to discredit the prosecution’s case by finding errors in the charge sheet.
- This should not, however, be an obstacle to the public’s wish to see the charge sheet before the trial begins and be denied the opportunity to evaluate the efficacy of an investigation. Instead, the potential of a rank outsider’s critical evaluation could increase the soundness of a probe and prevent the disproportionate punishment of innocent persons without a good reason.
Giving up a chance:
- We now comprehend how certain investigations are biassed and ill-intentioned due to unrelated reasons. A trial court will really benefit from an outside analysis of the prosecution case if a charge sheet is made public.
- All investigative agencies, including the Central Bureau of Investigation, which has regularly faced criticism from courts for failing to promptly file charges or conducting subpar investigations, should take note of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Conclusion:
- Judicial oversight, which ostensibly ensures that wrongly accusing an innocent person is an exception rather than the rule, enhances India’s criminal justice system. If the public receives access to charge sheets before a trial, at least in big cases, the possibility of loosely worded charges will decline.
