 CLC. We welcome you all to yet another session. Amongst us today we have two speakers who have their knowledge which is well known amongst all of us. Those who follow law or those who don't follow law in the sense not law what a common citizen does. For not following law means who is not a lawyer as such. So once the topic today itself is criminal justice and the rule of law in India. We thought that the best way to put across the things would be to have those speakers who are immense known for their knowledge. We have Honorable Mr. Justice, Justice Leshwar who has been the former judge of the Supreme Court of India. He had also been the Chief Justice of Guwahati High Court and Kerala High Court. His judgments, his conduct inside the court and outside the court is well known. His popularity though there are a large number of participants amongst these participants I'm seeing amongst them is one of them is Mr. Asim Pandya who is the former president of Gujarat Bar Association and he's a designated senior. He has also come on a platform once. His views for the inject verdict is well known then on Shreya Singhal and so on and on and those who have been following cricket and politics the judgment of Navjot Siddhu popularly known as Navjot Siddhu's judgment otherwise that's the other way round and then we have Mr. Dr. Argo Sen Gupta. When I invited Dr. Argo Sen Gupta I said that if it had not been known otherwise commonly we would have thought it's Argya Sen Gupta or we can say Argya is Sen Gupta that we have to make a request to him that you should come on the board. That's the way we are normally pronounced. He is a research director of Viti Center for Legal Policies is known for is an expert in this field. He has served number of government committees including most recently Justice B. N. Sri Krishna committee led on data protection and data protection becomes a very relevant topic in the today's scenario and his insights on various issues there's a large following as we say there's a fan following once you are known within the legal circles and beyond the legal circles then the following as to what are his stakes etc is always considered in the right perspective what does this take each word is as good as pounds of gold today we will be having the format slightly different since we have amongst us Justice Chalmeshwar and Argya Sen Gupta instead of having a monologue dialogue we have been having the interactive sessions today the format would be slightly different it will be a more of an interactive session we can get the insights of two persons known within their field and outside the field for the knowledge Argo Sen Gupta would be taking certain questions with Justice Chalmeshwar who will be giving insights but at the same time the chat box would be open everybody should restrain posting the chats relevant with the topic we would also be going live with the Facebook and the questions posted on the Facebook I can take it or Mr. Argo can take it and we will have the insights of both both the persons so welcome again formally to stay there in that we are setting the into motion with Argo taking the calls with the certain questions in his own style Argo carries his own style of asking over to you Argo and the way we take let's see how the new format goes into it thank you both of you thank you very much because thank you for introduction and thank you Justice Chalmeshwar for having this conversation today you haven't been one of the supreme former Supreme Court judges who was very popular on Zoom as there are some judges who have been doing many webinars but I think if I'm not mistaken this is the first one and I'm delighted that to do this with Punjab University and beyond law CLC so thank you very much Vikas for having invited us so the format as Vikas said we'll do a conversation for about 30 to 40 minutes and then we'll be happy to take questions which you can put on the on the chat box because if there's anything on Facebook or YouTube then you can let me know so that we can take those questions as well so Justice Chalmeshwar let me start with an article that I had written just after the Hyderabad encounter killings and with your permission I'll just quote a little paragraph of what I had said there the encounter killings of Shiva Arif Navin and Chenna Keshavalu in Hyderabad has united India in one respect no one genuinely believes that it was an accidental encounter the statements by the Hyderabad police that is it was a crime reconstruction in the dead of the night the attempt by the accused to snatch weapons fatally accurate shots being fired by the police ostensibly in self-defense are so far-fetched that every right-thinking person believes that the encounter was staged to deliver instant justice to the suspected rapist murderers what was however conspicuous was the wide ranging support for the actions of the Hyderabad police Rishi Kapoor had congratulated them Saina Nehwal had seruted them and Jaya Bachchan had said that as a member of parliament that she demanded an even more extreme measure than in instant justice that is public lynching and I'm sure various uncles aunts and friends on WhatsApp groups had asserted that justice indeed had been done given the fact that we are discussing this primarily with a group of lawyers what why do you think the criminal justice apparatus in the public mind seems to have collapsed well with the utmost respect for all those who feed it for instant justice who found a justification for the incident I do understand their agony and their outburst of justification of instant justice the point is yeah why is it happening that is a more important question but exactly two days before the even the killing took place the encounter took place I was in a meeting in Hyderabad a couple of politicians were there who belonged to the communist party and the entire direction of police was there and evident the title of I trust the lady so I spoke on this topic because by then these calls were coming the demands are coming that please execute them summarily or hand over them to browse gather them demanding that they give the hand over to them so that they can be we can so on this kind of thing that I feel in this place so in this background in fact I don't know whether you remember it or not almost a decade back in a town called Varangal in the present state of Kalangana a similar incident sorry you have to come closer to the mic because people are saying that the audibility is slightly poor I do it remove these microphone okay how is it now I can just how is it kindly posted on the chat box just say a little bit more then we will be able to answer yes that's true how is it yeah I think it's better just say a little bit more to give us a sentence then we learn okay so can you say can you hear us I can hear you yeah so if you speak at this volume it will be fine so just pick up a little bit yes yeah now yes yes okay decade back there was a similar incident some boys to acid on the face of the injured problems and then eventually it looked like the killing of those two boys quite a piece the same version that they were trying to escape the custody you know they tried to attack the police whatever they are not going into the group or otherwise of you know it's relevant for our discussion the point is the public reaction there are quite almost similar people started congratulating the police for what had happened and so on and so there was a huge position statement running down by the students in the space slightly more louder still people are saying the issues continues to persist more louder is it yes yes so so you can also just listen to that I'm saying also take regarding the yes sir yeah the reactions from the public and civil society were similar there are huge procession organized congratulation the police for what they had done and similar reactions were seen those days but I remember and one of those TV channels was conducting some kind of a survey on this incident and advocate in roads made a statement saying what is wrong with it I know what happens the matter is to be sent for trial the words are present for trial the whole problem will take 25 years before any final verdict is given so what is wrong with it is done this is the understanding of the number of the part you know this is part of the recovery of all the country so therefore what is the problem problem is the last about what happened during British India we had reason to bring up our and all that everything that went wrong in the company but then for the last 70 years there was no problem what have we done with the system what have we done with the administration of criminal law is something which is not very pleasant to them now it is a fact that the culmination of any criminal proceeding starting from the investigation from the registration of the crime to the final conclusion that is the trial and appeal perhaps for the high court depending upon the nature of the crime and then an assault to the Supreme Court and an appeal well in some cases at least thereafter the Supreme Court used a death penalty the mercy for the court it is all legally sanctioned process now it is no doubt a very new process that we have on the record the question is how efficient the process is the question I just give you two cases which I had occasion to deal with to demonstrate what's going on see one of the cases is a case which I got in 2006. It was a patiently a hilarious case but legally very distressing a particular gentleman called Raja belong to one of those banned outfits one of those ML outfits now at that point of time sometime in 2006 the superintendent of police of Karim Nagar district constituted a special party to apprehend this man who according to information available at that point of time was somewhere around Uttar Pradesh. The party was dispatched from Karim Nagar these people went and on a particular day you remember right it was on the 21st of August 2006 the police party which proceeded from Karim Nagar located this man in the bus stand of Barabanti town they located him. Immediately these 7 or 8 police personnel deputed from Karim Nagar pounced on the man to apprehend all these people were in plain clothes then this man was accompanied by some four others allegedly his power is most probably yes because these people who are in plain clothes they thought it's some local you know the Bundas trying to molest them those four people resisted then they ensured in a scuffle then the local Utti police came and picked up all these people these four or five people Raja and also the brain Nagar police people who were in brain goes all of them were taken to the Barabanti police station. Then after seven inquiries it was found out that these people belong to the police force of the erstwhile state of Annapurish. Afterwards these people were allowed to pick Raja and his associates with them all the five people were dumped into cars and these people proceeded to Annapurish to go to Annapurish state. After the team entered Annapurish territory then obviously it must have dawned on the police party that against four of them they had no authority to arrest. Basically they were deputed to apprehend Raja against the other four people there was no authorization to arrest them there was no crime. Admittedly there was no crime registered against other four people in Annapurish who were not going to say Annapurish, Annapurish existed on that day. Now there was no crime registered so therefore then obviously some doubts are all and then what they did was they could do all the five police people could do all the five of these apprehended Raja and his associates to report the local one of the local police stations. With the allegation that these people wanted to answer the calls of the nature and when the rapes were stopped and they tried to escape by snatching the weapons you know one of those scourges had two people in this country and therefore they come to the apex and all these people were crying for the registered. Afterward they were produced by the local magistrate concerned magistrate from the police station and the remand was over. Challenging the remand, I was caught in this petition to file the paper, eventually it was heard by me, it wasn't been considered over by me. Now these are the basic facts. Now we had, after hearing the matter, had to allow the reputations of others, four of Raja's affiliates and concepts. For various reasons recorded in the report. If I could come in there, I have shared the judgment with everybody so they would have, so I actually had two questions about the judgment. So first is in relation, so everybody has the basic facts and for those for whom the sound is a little unclear as a basic, you got the gist of it that there were for there were persons who were who were from Andhra Pradesh who had gone to Barabanki, they were arrested by the Andhra Pradesh police. Not all, not all. Two of them are from Maharashtra actually. Okay, two of them were from Maharashtra and they were brought back to Andhra Pradesh and now the questions arose regarding the legality of the arrest of the main gentleman Raja Iyer and his four accomplices. Now and so the question, so just to tell you why I read the judgment and I found that you had two different, there were two different sets of holdings. First in relation to Raja Iyer, the judgment is the judgment holds that as far as Raja Iyer is concerned, technically the arrest that was made in Uttar Pradesh by the Andhra Pradesh police was not technically legal because the warrant had not been endorsed. Okay, I'm not getting into more details for the audience. As far as the remaining four people are concerned, you had held that the Andhra Pradesh police had no jurisdiction whatsoever to arrest. You can arrest them in Andhra Pradesh. Exactly. Barabanki, you need to be an offence. It's an offence that is in Barabanki and the Andhra Pradesh police has no jurisdiction. And their apprehension itself wasn't even polite and arrested with a legal term. They can live right here by force. That's right. So in some sense it is a kidnapping of some persons but anyway be that as it may. So my question was on Raja Iyer. Now in terms of Raja Iyer, as in I think the holding is very interesting for our listeners because it gives an insight into the mind of a judge in a criminal law matter. You find that the arrest and I thank my research assistant Vasuda Verma for this. She has done a quite a bit of research on this. So thank you. She's also on this call. You find that as far as Raja Iyer is concerned, the warrant that was issued had not been properly endorsed. As a result of it, there was a technicality that was that had been missed. But you still said that that technicality is not one that is sufficient for you to quash that FIIA. Now I will ask the second FIIA. So my question to you is that despite finding a technical illegality, what was the thinking behind the final holding, which is going to be of great assistance to everyone listening, that you still said that the technical illegality should not override the substantive injustice that will be caused? No, two things, two things. That these people, Raja Iyer, when a second FIIA, not a second actually, there are five cases they can still be, even before the party was dispatched to apprehend him. Four cases, the main allegation is charges three not two, one case it was three not seven case. Now that these facts are understood even before the high court. The fact that such crimes were resisted and pending investigation and one of them was in fact issued by the concerned court. Question here is whether it was the end-house or not is a question or if you required a finding, you didn't find any end-house, that's a different fact. If a person is required in five cases of which court or murder cases are normally going to occur, the fact that there is a procedural irregularity in apprehending him, could it result in the issue of with the FIIA's purpose is a question. Now, for two reasons we declined to grant relief of the FIIA's purpose. One is we could do two things. Assuming that it is set aside, the minute he comes out of the court, the police can still arrest him because there are two not two cases. Second thing and more important to the point of view of the system is what is this law which says that you take all these precautions and take x y z steps before arresting a man, what is the purpose behind all this to make sure that the police, the law enforcing agency do not act arbitrarily and do not hold somebody in custody without any authorization for independent period and to avoid the possibility of any physical or harm to the apprehended person. I suppose that is the reason for all these precautions. That is the reason for the constant mandate that as soon as possible, my heart goes out to the court and to the district person, to the magistrate. I suppose there is a philosophy behind all these things. There was no allegation that any such thing happened. If there is a technical reasoning, maybe there are other ways of rectifying that this thing might be a compensation for the court. But they were never argued before the bench. Therefore, we saw more justification for imagine Raja Iya. But insofar as the other four are concerned, nearly they have no legal charitable ground for continuing in the system. And just imagine if these people, and if you are a red-banded after they were produced before the magistrate in Anupadesh, then they were searched and it is said that from them some explosives were recovered. And all the way they were traveling from Parapati to Anupadesh which these people had to be carrying on. Raja Iya was supposed to be carrying a point to revolve on the thing. That is the appropriate point by the police. And one of them was carrying some grenades. I am not on the merits of the case. I am not on the merits and the conclusion. The point is, if this procedural force which is enforced in this country for 150 years, even today if law enforcing agencies and I only blame the law enforcing agencies, man was sought. The magistrate asked the basic question, how can you bring these people to Anupadesh? What is the difference they have committed here? And now here you say that they are trying to escape and then they file an application to amend the FIR saying that un-search now we find all this materialistic. So therefore, this is the efficiency that must assist. The whole idea of citing this case is not to say that Raja Iya because this is the efficiency with which we follow the law. This whole doctrine of the rule of law That's right. So I think that's a very valid point and to those who had some problems in hearing Justice Chalameshwar's basic point was that in this case as in many others his philosophy has really been that procedure is a handmaiden of justice. Procedure cannot become all pervasive so that it can defeat the ends of justice which is why Raja Iya as it was despite the fact that there was a technical illegality in that arrest, a writ of habeas corpus was not issued and Raja Iya continued to remain incarcerated and the citations of these will I will send it to you in a moment so that anyone who wants to read further can do so. And Raja, the more interesting fact is of course after deciding this case in a year I left Hattaboy and I went to go over to you. I learned later this man worked here of all the charges. He contested the next election and became a member of the list he does in the rally. So certainly our trist of having criminals in politics continues but I actually as whether he was a criminal or not is a different issue but at least you didn't give him a writ of habeas corpus. So now actually I'm going to jump from there which is a judgment of yours from the time you were a judge in the Andhra Pradesh High Court to one of your last reported judgments in the Supreme Court. It was a very interesting triple murder case coming out of Gujarat because I'll be very frank with you and the listeners I see Justice Jallameshwar primarily as a constitutional law expert and judge but he has written some fantastic criminal law judgments and his last one was a triple murder case from Gujarat in the case of Vinu Bhai Ranchordas versus state. And there as in for our listeners as it was a triple murder case and there were several facts and I'll send the judgments but the key issue was that it had been 26 years since that incident had taken place. I might be off by a year or two but somewhere in the region of 26 years. 1989 the incident took place. So 2026 years since the incident took place and you found that in the trial itself as in there were sufficient grounds for a retrial to be ordered because the trial had not been carried out in accordance with law. But again maybe coming back to this first there for a minute I'm sorry to say nothing went right in that case, nothing went right in this case. Neither the investigation nor the trial nor the appeal is right. I'm sorry to say but I have recorded it. I'm not saying this off the top. That's right. Part of the judgment. So but then the remedy and this is where it's interesting because when it comes to the remedy as in you say in the judgment and we are discussing this as an academic matter that as far as the question is concerned that instead of ordering a retrial which you said will not serve the ends of justice given it has been 26 years some of the persons may not even be alive at this point of time. I think one or two of them had passed away. Some of the accused died, some of the witnesses had died. The accused died, some of the witnesses had died and you instead said. Also one more fact in the criminal law and in the appreciation of the evidence you know the principle. Evidence obtained of the long lapse of time would have very limited life you know. Taking evidence again after 26 years. Yes so instead you did what is an interesting innovation which is you ordered like in Nilavati Bhaira public law compensation to be paid in the instant case. Now to the victims of their families as a case. To the victims of their families. Now do you think that compensation is a way that we can try and if not solved but at least mitigate the problems of delays in our judicial system. Particularly criminal law. Well it was a bit of debate by all the stakeholders. Could be one way then one more thing by making the amount to be paid from the state extra cover. We may not be okay you may do some justice to the victims of their families but then we may not be doing really justice to the system because no one is the brother. If you can make the wrong decision or the inefficient officer or the prosecutor no no of course because a inefficient judge will follow from that. Then no no you have to handle these things. That's right. Why would he see if a session I have heard in that judgment if a session judge could write one sentence and say that all the people are accused of offenses like so many charges probably in 17 to 2 years. Maybe some of them are chargeable only under 149. Maybe somebody else has lesser offence because lesser offence are all indicated. Who is chargeable, which offense is not clear to the government that is the efficiency level of judicial officer. You know something must be created to deal with such people. Well currently. To the system. Currently unfortunately the police men are the public officers. That's right. So each one of us in the system, the administrative agencies, the prosecuting agencies and the judicial officer, the efficiency levels. They do matter. That's why these things have been added. Absolutely. But currently the unfortunate reality is that of course in some cases compensation is ordered but the way in which the Supreme Court appears to try and solve the problems of inefficiencies in lower rungs of the judicial hierarchy or in the police is by taking on more matters for itself. Now I know that you have, I'll just complete this thought. I know that you have several times lamented the fact that the Supreme Court should not become a bail court in the country. The Supreme Court should not continue to hear bail matters. But two facts for your consideration. One you have already given is the absolute levels of inefficiency that exist in various cases. Not only the lowest level of the judicial hierarchy, but also in the police investigation and prosecution. Number one. Number two, I have just written an article on this today. I looked at, I don't know whether you've had a chance to see it, but I looked at the judgment of the sessions judge in Delhi in a case relating to the Northeast Delhi riots. It was a bail application moved by a 21-week-old pregnant lady, Safura Zargarh. Now I don't want to get into the merits of the case. It was a bail application. So we don't need to get into the merits of the case. But the basic law and I'm also not getting into this UAPA question because there was a question about the UAPA and I can get into that if someone asks a question. But the basic law is that the judge must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case and to be satisfied that there is a prima facie case and there must be some evidence that links the action of this lady who had supposedly given a speech and had participated in a WhatsApp group with some incidents which in this case were some riots. Now that entire judgment while well written does not contain an evidence of that linkage. It says the lady gave a speech. It says that there were some incidents. Now without that linkage it baffles me as to how a prima facie case particularly for an unlawful or a terrorist act under the UAPA can be established. Now given that errors of this nature and I think it's an error doesn't someone may feel free to disagree, but errors of this nature are made at the lower level of the judiciary. As in don't you think that the Supreme Court is intuitive as in it's being humane in saying that we want to take on these matters and correct the injustice that is done or alternatively do you think there should be some other solution? I always believe Supreme Court can't become a court of error correcting every error committed by every judicial tribunal in our court in this country unless you lead on the law, clear law and make sure that the system functions effectively. If you are examining the correctness of the judgment of irrespective of the fact whether there is a very constitutional question or not, let us say the matter of being what is the underlying principle that the Supreme Court perhaps is of opinion. Perhaps it's of opinion that maybe the High Court was not right. High Court was not right. If it is, if such a belief is prevalent, you really need to make about 100, I have last count in the last few years, what are the numbers I don't know. An average of about 100 would be available in some court from the High Court and the Supreme Court is inclined to examine these matters. Essentially, there is a belief that the High Court's conclusions are required to be re-examined here. Then obviously, there is something else to be examined, the recruitment process, what kind of people are being let the High Court which is without any any disrespect to anybody in this matter. There are much larger philosophical problems in this. See for 100 and 100 years almost 90 years, this country function only with High Court. There was no Supreme Court prior to the 1915. There was only the High Court. High Courts were the final courts, very few mad on one to the Supreme Council. Now, not saying that the High Court, the quality of the High Court though there is a pedestrian, the quality is not good. I am not saying all these things. Please don't misunderstand me. Point is, if this kind of scrutiny is to be taken up in every matter. See for example, if you remember, man was a dissenting judge in a constitution bench where the question was whether they should be open court hearing in a review petition in capital punishment matter. That's right. So, I think for the benefit of the listeners as in Justice Chalameshwar was on a constitution bench where the question had risen as to whether a review petition in a death penalty matter must be heard in open court and Justice Chalameshwar had dissented and said that it need not be heard in open court. Please continue, sir. No, no, no. See, of course, there are reviews and views on the matter, the reality held that that's a lot of country today, I am not worried, but then let us examine the problem apart from the judgment. See, under the text of the constitution, there is not even a right of appeal in the case of a death penalty. Only right of appeal arises when there is a diversity judgment. In the trial court, it puts the accused of an offense which is punishable with capital death penalty and the high court reverses it and imposes capital punishment, then there is a right of appeal under the text of the constitution. Otherwise, merely because death penalty is awarded by the trial court and the high court in the court trial confirmed it, there is no right of appeal. Now, on that, if you see the hope today, certain hope today, forget about the death penalty matter even in life imprisonment matters. Of course, every clean up to case appeal, SLP, the leave is frightening. The ending of the leave is another story which is open for today. SLP's and the notice is ordered. Matters are examined. They are understanding. They are serious matters. Let us have another look at it. We start examining it that way. Apparently, what is it? There is some lingering doubt. Maybe the high court is not it. So therefore, then strengthen the high courts. Without the quality of the high court, if you think that to the quality is not good, are the judgments required for this thing? Obviously, nobody says it. The whole difficulty in this thing is nobody wants to come out clearly what is the problem. Then, will the Supreme Court be able to handle all these problems? How long will it be able to? Now, every two years, the number of the leaders of the court in the Sarah Mocking industry is very good. But then, eventually, all the matters will have to be examined by the Supreme Court. Then, what will happen to the system? Therefore, the whole process, the whole process, all right, then do it with the high court, let everything be examined by the Supreme Court or some such thing, that is the time frame will be reduced. It is 25 years, 30 years, still be consumed with the process. The high courts are about it. But then, the process is probably one of the efficiency of the system. If you don't improve the efficiency of the system, this enormous time consumption will be there. That lead frustration among the people, among the people, the general public. And then, the major reactions like what happened in Hyderabad, I don't know. I'm sure these things are going to be, maybe in other states also, such conditions must be there. In India, India is one or not in good things, in all bad practices, India is one. This can happen all over. Good things from other states are not there. That is an unfortunate reality that bad practices in India are certainly spread, spread very quickly across the country. But so, I think your solution is an interesting one that the Supreme Court cannot solve this problem case by case by hearing more, admitting more 136 matters. And the answer, the systemic answer lies in improving the quality of particularly our subordinated judiciary, our police processes, which are more difficult reforms. The legal education, the kind of people who become lawyers, the kind of argument that are placed, the public prosecutors, the investigating officers, what is the training we give them? What is the training we give them in law, except some physical exercise in the training college? What is the training which is imparted to these investigating officers to be? That's right, that's right. No, therefore they're bound to commit mistakes. Then those mistakes are bound to be highlighted by the defense counsel. The defense counsel happens to be more seasoned one, if you're able to do it with greater efficiency, then the court will have more option. I understand. I think we've got a number of reasons to answer that first question that I asked. Why do we think the criminal justice apparatus has collapsed? And I think one is clearly the fact that we don't give training to our personnel. Our legal education requires improvement. And ultimately, that delays in the justice system are- And the audit of any one of the decisions of any one of the systems is not there? That's right, there is no audit. And most importantly, that the delays in the justice system make it frustrating for the common person to come into the justice system. That is why for the last five years I have said that the motto of the Indian judiciary should be Jaldi, Justice, Access and Lowering Delays in India. That really has to be the motto of the Indian judiciary. So the last question from me, before a point of discussion, before we open it up to- We've got about 142 participants, it's a good number. The power to do complete justice, 142, the power that you wielded for many years. But coming back to- We would have to explain Article 142 because students sometimes would not know what is- You said 142 correlates with Supreme Court. So sometimes you will have to explain that 142- In a common flow one doesn't sometimes realize that some people- No, thank you Prakash for pointing it out. So given that there are many students here, if you read the Constitution, you'll see Article 142 provides an extraordinary power to the Supreme Court to do complete justice. My own view is that the Constitution framers didn't think of it as that extraordinary. But the Supreme Court has certainly over the course of the last 70 years made it truly extraordinary. So we can get into a debate on that later as to what the extent of the 142 power should be. But let me end with where I start. We are seeing in America today, pursuant to the George Floyd murder, that there is a nationwide demand for police reform. In fact, the Minneapolis city has said that it is going to disband its police force and going to build it again. Now the history of police atrocities in India is much older than George Floyd and unfortunately parallels any atrocity that is committed in America. But police reforms in India still seem to be a distant dream. So I'll go back to Hyderabad where I started, which is that people seem to have lost faith in the criminal justice system. If you had a magic wand, what would you say are the two to three key reforms that are needed, key reforms that are needed, so that people again have some faith in the criminal justice system. See, one reform which I am always advocating today is that the duties of the police must be streamlined. You can't use the same police inspector for time investigation, V.I.P. Bandobas and managing in natural disasters and things like that. Time investigation is a specialized effort. Now, what is the officers who are to deal with the criminal investigation of crime must be specially trained for it. That's one of the reforms I would say. I am not doing a complete shadow of reforms. That's one thing which is essential. Okay, so that's about specialization in police force. So I think that's actually a good segue because... Yeah, you can't have Mr. Ramayit Malani as the police inspectors, but you must teach them some basics of criminal law. That's right. How to frame a charge, how to restore the crime. And then what are the steps to be taken before arresting a man and the worse? Searching a house or searching for something. These are the basics. And quite often, they are not even aware of it. They forget about their irreverence to law. Quite a lot of them are simply ignorant about it. And most what is the law to be followed. And then the devil turned into duty. There's a different story of how to deal with the first man or woman in a different matter. So quite often, they don't even know what is the actual legal provision which he is supposed to implement. That's right. That's the trouble. That's right. So I think police training is a key area that you've suggested. Of course, there are many more. But because we have many more, many questions, because will you take it? How do you want to do it? I'll go, both of us can take it. Like once I am reading, you can take the another question. This is a question to you by Gomti. What according to you should be the ultimate aim in handing over the punishments by way of imprisonment, etc., to the convicts? Should that be predominantly reformative or rehabilitative in nature? Or just deterrent in nature towards the other so that the others are stopped from doing that? What do you call them? Because it doesn't depend upon my opinion or your opinion. The punishment given, let us say, somebody is given a sentence of life imprisonment. Whatever is the grasp in the hand, it makes more reference to that man. What is the effect of that punishment is to be seen. For an average mind, how does it operate? Because somebody is an ordinary criminal, not every educated or very intelligent man. Somebody who has done something out of a flashness, of the momentary laws of discretion. It all depends on various factors, in what kind of conditions are feeling the jades. And do we undertake any reformatory practices in the prison? It all depends on these things. But you and I think... No, I get that. So I'll just quickly follow up because there is an interesting question from Gyanil Bhatt. This could be, he's given an example, but it could be an example from anywhere. He says, in a case in UP's Gorakhpur, the Crime Branch police officer asked for Rs. 50,000 to take some accused names out of a case that two of the students who was wrongly framed, arrested and charged, what remedy can be there against some arbitrary and malicious arrest? Now, this is a larger question with the elephant in the room that we have avoided studiously so far, which is the question of corruption. And I know there is no easy answer to this question, but it could be Gyanil Bhatt in Gorakhpur or it could be any other person in any other part of the country. This is a constant problem that we all face. What is your sense? No. They are a solution. They always, some states have under the local police laws, some states have a police ambush. Some of the states, I don't know if the UP has a closure or not, I'm not very sure. There is some sort of scheme that may be a complaint. This is a real case. This is a real one. Or somebody, like similar to Lopayett, some states have a Lopayett case. The misdemeanor of public servants could do exactly. Now, but one thing in the whole process is this. This alleviation of corruption is difficult to establish under the law we have. And we know most often it depends on some substantial ways. Very rarely, once in a while, you get to know it as a video clipping. Somebody is intelligent enough to record the reclamation. In spite of it, whatever it is, it's a different story. Now, it's very difficult to establish this thing. But the legal way of doing that, I can think of. You're right. This is not an easy problem, Mr. Bhatt, as in this is a difficult issue. But as just the Chalamet show points out, and I think it's right that we have seen that if there could be police ombudsman laws in various states, that could be a measure of police accountability. And ultimately, as I'm not holding a brief for the police here, but it must be said that one of the key problems with the police force is the fact that we don't train them. We give them lattes. And we expect that they are not only going to control law and order. They are going to deal with terrorism. They are going to deal with riots. They are going to deal with VIP protection. They are going to deal with a host of range of issues. That doesn't mean to say that it's a license for them to be corrupt. But I think we also have to see how we staff our police force, how much money we are spending on the police force and what training we are giving it. Because at the end of the day, you get as good a police force as you are willing to pay for. So if you are going to pay for it more and you're going to give them staffing, get good people, then I think that is a long-term systemic solution. But there is no real quick fix. Argo, this question has been posted to you since you are reading yourself, you can also do. This is by Debrisheet Chakravarty. I can also read that. In your article, you have drawn reference for future, drawn reference from Justice Krishna Iyer saying that bail being the rule and jail being the exception. While I understand, though not entirely, the relevance of it in Jaifura's case, but would yielding to that be prudent as a general principle? What is your take on that? Yes, absolutely. And I think that this is not me, but this is and not just Justice Krishna Iyer, but this is generations of precedent, not just in India, but everywhere else in the world, that in any civilized criminal justice system, bail must be the rule. And jail is the exception. And then there are two, there's one principle reason for it. The principle conceptual reason for it is that a man is innocent until he's proven guilty. And if a person is an undertrial, then that undertrial is innocent. And if he's innocent, then he has a right to have his liberty intact. Now, of course, there must be an exception. And the principles for the exception are really well laid out as both by Justice Krishna Iyer and elsewhere in our bail jurisprudence, that A, there must be, I think he must not be a habitual offender who can tamper with evidence or tamper with witnesses, must not be a flight risk, someone who will abscond from justice. So, and the judge must be satisfied, there is a prima facie case. So, I think that as a general matter, as a general principle in India and elsewhere in the world, rightly so bail is the rule. There is another reason as to why this is so in India is that we must realize the fact that all our jails, bar none, are overcrowded. And they are primarily overcrowded with undertrial prisoners. This relates to the question that the lady earlier had asked Justice Chalameshwar, which is what is the purpose of the criminal justice system? Should it be reformative or should it be deterrent? Currently, it seems that if you are putting undertrial prisoners as in jails for lengthy periods of time, then it is neither reformative nor it is deterrent. In fact, it encourages further criminal activity because you are putting undertrial prisoners together with hardened criminals and convicts in, sometimes you have divisions in jail premises, but sometimes you don't. So, there is another practical reason in India as to why bail should be the principle, unless otherwise so, which is that it leads to overcrowding of prisons and I'm not even getting into COVID-related issues. So, I'll stop there. I'll go by my personal experience of my parent. The whole state of Anupalish are all major offenses. During the pendency of the trial after the charge sheet is filed, bail used to be wrong. Very exceptionally, jail used to be the situation. But once convicted, found guilty by the trial court and appealed, let us say, in Trinocco cases and appealed comes to the court. As a non, as a convention, the Anupalish had never granted old Anupalish, had never granted bail for the Trinocco family barring rounds of the country. That's an extraordinary situation. As a rule, it was rejected. In fact, very eminent senior council refused to move by bail applications in a Trinocco case. So, even in Trinocco, there's no point. The tradition of this court is not to grant. Now, therefore, bail also at various levels. When you try to get something, when you appeal is something, so the rule board is something. In fact, when I was in prison for as a broad come through, I used to cover when I first started presiding in prison. If somebody is in jail for 10 years after conviction and appeal is spending in the Supreme Court. Then we used to cancel a grant because it served a major portion of his sentence. So, with that, what is the point in issuing notice in the SLP after five years or seven years, you come to a conclusion the conviction is wrong. What is the purpose for it? So, the man has already spent about 10 years there. Let him go on subject to, exceptions are always there, certain precautions are to be taken in some cases. So, these are all things which are required to be examined on a case-to-case basis to be trained by trained legal minds. Fine. They can't make some rules in these things applicable to all situations. And second thing is, why is it all, see, and I said, under the years I put, never used to do bail application in the sentence, normally not used to do it. By the time I entered the promotion, maintenance on this case, if we know the duration of pregnancy for a three-notch to appeal, in the erstoy-large-regional court, he is maximum one year. Within one year, the report used to disclose claim the entire pregnancy of the previous year. So, which case, if the man is not granted bail, okay, in a case where he is eventually acquitted, maybe he would have some words on the problem for a moment, but the way that the system would show that helping. But, at least the system works with certain degree of efficiency. These things can be adjusted. Now, what do you think? The court doesn't decide the appeal for 15 years. It's not to be, I've seen high court matters are pending for 15 years, but I have seen an appeal sitting in the Supreme Court, which came before our bench, where the appeal was pending for 24 years in a particular high court. I don't want to name it. I'm not blaming any individual, but the system is certainly something wrong with it, because the appeal is pending for 24 years in a high court. And I would not do this. And I think there's something wrong, and this kind of thing would happen in a way that would happen. In fact, in all those cases, with Mark Khandogorez and the US, we initiated something used to go down, which was what was used in the case to the rest of the Uttar Pradesh court. So, if you do something that won't depend on the future monitoring, and how it's still monitoring some reports of court and so on. Something has to be done about it, even keep things pending for 20 years. It is there. Just in the context of the accused, or in the context of the victim. You must find some way to get things done at an earlier date. You have to devise. The system must devise a way of clearing these areas. Absolutely. Absolutely. Because, next question. Yeah. Advocates should eat Patak. So, eat wants to take. Criminal cases are delayed due to report awaited from forensic labs. Can allowing of private labs come into picture will speeden up the criminal justice or what is your take in that? It can be tried. Provided the private lab's reputation is booked. Who is the private lab is the question ultimately. Who is running the private lab? He is the reputation of the lab and he is the integrity of the people running the lab unquestionably. There is nothing. How do we determine? It's a matter of whether the state will have to hold some scheme by which maybe some kind of empowerment after checking of the credentials and the background and the efficiencies and so on and so on. Some kind of an empowerment of this private lab. It's possible. So, the thing can be straight away. I am saying that it is an idea of what experimenting with. First of all, it is to be discussed. What are the precautions to be taken if you're interested in the forensic examination of the private lab? It makes a difference. Let it be experimented. There's one question which I think is an interesting one on the need for sensitization of the criminal justice system. The person, Smriti Rao, is asking. Argo, we have unmuted her. She will ask the question. She can ask it herself. Yeah, okay. Yes. So, my question basically was that do you think that there's an imminent need of sensitization in the entire criminal justice system and not just the police or the courts? As we've seen, as a resident of Hyderabad myself, the rape case and the killing of the accused was very, it sent shivers down our spine because the police knew no limits to their powers. And if we read Pratik Shah Bakshi, we can see that even the medical profession who examined the victims of sexual assault, they're also very insensitive to the victims. So, do you think that there is an immediate need for sensitization of the criminal justice system and how do you propose to do this? Either and if both of the panellists could answer. Argo, you are getting into areas. What do you mean by sensitization? Sensitization would be a problem. We care about the import of these words. What do you mean by saying? We are unmuting her. Yeah. We are unmuting her. Please do it to her. Sir, sensitization in a lot of sense, like firstly to identity, identity politics, there needs to be sensitization of that. Let it be gender, caste or any of that because there are a lot of criminal issues which come in, for example, like child abuse cases, there has to be a more sensitive approach towards such cases because you can't handle them like you do, say, vaging war against a nation. Young lady, sorry, I didn't get your name. Sir, it's Smriti. Smriti. Smriti. Smriti. Smriti, you are talking about that. It's more of a social problem. Maybe our generations are not sensitive enough. Maybe our educational systems and our social setting are not sensitizing. See, to be more gentle in these matters, to be more cautious, to be more independent when dealing with a child or a person who is victim of some sexual up and down is something which is a matter of a personal requirement which comes, doesn't come by a sensitization course of a month or 15 days. It's a long process. It's an aspect of the culture. It's an aspect of upbringing. It's an aspect of the education which a person goes to. So, okay, sensitization program doesn't do any harm. Yes, sir, I agree. Okay, for the sensitization program, 15 days, it helps to one degree well. I don't know. So that's what it does. Thank you, sir. Argo, you can take another question from the chat box. Okay, so there is a, I saw there are two questions which are quite important and this is a, so I'll actually drive it to you. I'll direct it to you. He's about the adversarial justice system that's followed in criminal law in India. A question is asked by Rajeev Das that isn't it time that we move from the adversarial system to an inquisitorial system and whether and how it can be achieved? What I think, at least in certain areas, we have already moved on to the inquisitorial system. Not enough. In certain categories of criminal cases, we have already moved on to the inquisitorial system. Remember the Tata Act? Yes. Part of the process shifted. What else is it? What do you mean by inquisitorial system and other dimensions of the inquisitorial system? You're already moving the direction to some extent. Apart from actual aberrations and the so-called adversarial systems. And I think as in my answer to that, as in Rajeev would be that it's not so much a question of whether we have an adversarial system or an inquisitorial system, but I think as a society that prides itself on having the rule of law, then we must be clear as that law is not equivalent to criminalization because we still think going back to John Austin, you know law is the command of the sovereign enforceable by sanction. We think that it's only that sanction element, that element of criminalization which makes us follow the law. And perhaps it's true to just give you an example as in I was at Delhi airport, as in you know I was during this COVID time going to take a flight and you know everybody was, obviously no one was following any social distancing. Okay or there were clearly marks that were made, no one was doing that. Some policemen came with a danda, then everybody fell in line. Okay and this is all at the airport I'm talking about, so it's not as if you're talking about thousands of people. So maybe as Justice Chalameshwar said in answer to the previous question, as in it's a question of who we are as a society and if we only respond as into criminal penalty, then that's not really the rule of law, that's the rule by law. And I think we have a long way to go before we achieve any rule of law. Because any other questions? I will take Piyusha's sent a message privately on the chat itself. This is the question to Justice Chalameshwar. Do you think that illegal detentions must be charged by the state in monetary or other form to the person who has suffered in this regard? Yeah, it should be. The person is kept in legal custody, preventive or punitive or whatever it is. When the venture is formed to be illegal, the person must be compensated for the damage he suffered. But the pain he underwent and the damage of the footage he suffered, the state must compensate him. See, I'll tell you something. The process can be very painful sometimes, but I have known a particular case I'll tell you an old lady who is about 97-year-old, unfortunately she is no more now. At the age of 95 or 96, a criminal case was registered against her. The people who registered the crime also related to her. What is the problem? A criminal case for defamation. She is supposed to have a bit of a template making certain allegations against XYZ in the context of trusting some temple or something like that. She was supposed to have published a pamphlet, she was 96 because she published one of the journals and she didn't want to try to guess. Now, this temple exists some 300 kilometers from Hyderabad. This old lady lived there. And a criminal case was registered in Hyderabad. It has stopped the so-called victims because they live in Hyderabad. And in their cases, these pamphlets were circulated in Hyderabad. The crime was registered here. It was a company, not a police report, it was a color company in the mile straight. The mile straight issue process, calling upon the lady to come and appear before the court to travel 300 kilometers. The age of 96 to answer the job. Now, whether factually she committed the crime whether the pamphlet was distributed by her law or not with around different questions. And sometimes this process can be terribly traumatic. Terribly traumatic, I know it. It was an extreme example which is wrong for me. In many cases, in many cases, it can be. No, in India actually, as is often said, the process itself is the punishment. So that is the biggest problem in the country. I think we can take one or two. Is that a year later and therefore our problems ended? That's right, that's right. So we'll take one or two final questions. There's one from Poonam Maheshwari, which I think is an interesting one. I also felt that was an interesting question. Yes, Argo, you can take that question. Yeah, so the question was my question. She says my question to your lordship is that witness protection. My lordship two years by that, yeah. No, I didn't say lordship. She is saying, so I'm only quoting my question. Please tell whoever it is. Okay, I will rephrase for her. My question to you. No, Argo, but in our system, they say once a lot is always a lot. Because the question is that after the retirement, people are taking you that your word of any expression is an expression that how the society looks forward for that. That is why they say the lordship that leading to the right path of the track. Without that appellation anyway. So my question to you is that witness protection has been the biggest problem where we often see witnesses turning hostile in courts. Even though we have laws to protect against for witness protection, we see that the execution of such laws are ineffective. What kind of reform do we need in this area? There is a law in place. So what is the reform in this? Implement the law is simple. No, but so what is the reform that is needed in order to ensure that this law is implemented? No, who is responsible for the implementation? The person who is not implementing it. They can't ask the legal process. So what is that legal process? Well, initially the legal process is against the ban according to the law. But this will be against the state. So you are saying that we should take the state to court. So you are saying that we should take the state to court for a mandamus being issued against the state for not implementing the law relating to witness protection. In my opinion, the pending criminal case is not to be given the necessary protection in accordance with law. Please bring it on the orders of the concerned criminal court. Say that you care under law, I am entitled for this protection and these people are not doing this protection. Let the court take action. Why should we go with the IPOC or mandamus every time? That's right, fair enough. That's absolutely right, I think. We are coming to the Supreme Court. Sir, Dipti has posted a question but I will frame it another way. She says that media reporting is affecting primarily the criminal justice system. Do you think that there has to be a certain check and balance? Sir, she is an advocate in Bangalore. She says that media reporting does affect a particular case in a particular manner. What is your take on that? Should there be stoppage and only after the case is decided or done? Or what is the way forward? Reporting of facts can be stopped. Reporting in the name of reporting of the facts Opelians are generated. That is a dangerous situation. Well, I think the media must be sensitized to the problem from the expression sensitize. Any other expression might bring me into trouble with the media. That's it. See, acts are to be reported. They tend to second opinion about it. But then after the fact, if you start homulating opinions and publishing it, it can create a lot of trouble for being accused. So I have two just quick points to add to that because if I may. And that one is that I think that in order to ensure that media and their particular interpretations of judgments and particularly oral observations, because that's I think is what's problematic. There are a lot of oral observations are reported as judgment. I think there is a real case for at least for the Supreme Court as in to strongly consider and there is a judgment of the Supreme Court in this regard also to strongly consider live streaming of proceedings as in subject to feasibility except for some sensitive cases. That's number one. And number two, I think the court itself like the UK Supreme Court should put out a short media summary of its most important judgments. So if it is a judgment like the system, I'm sure it was a part of in NJC or a judgment. I think the court itself should put out a very short media summary of its judgments so that the facts become clear and everybody, the discerning reader will at least be able to understand that everything else is interpretation. So because shall we close that? I think because the way the system is taking the issues and you are also putting the inputs, the questions will keep on pouring in. But we think that every time we say that a line has to be drawn somewhere, not the Lakshman Rekha, but some Rekha that otherwise the questions will keep on pouring. But that sometimes gives you an idea that yes, we can look forward where we can take certain issues on this platform once again on a different perspective, different issue. We are in fact all enamored for the fact that Justice Chandraeshwar, as you said, it was rightly and Justice Chandraeshwar can agree on that aspect. I also feel that since nowadays, during at least during the lockdown, we are all getting invites. But I didn't find that Justice Chandraeshwar has actually expressed anywhere, be that we zoom or any other application, we are enamored for the fact that both of you have given the insights which actually people are latching upon. I can also see on the Facebook that large number of participants, I think it should be one of the record participants today, that we have been able to hear the expressions coming forth from two persons known in their own field. So before I will also ask, since Argo, I will not say that he was one, you were the keynote speaker, but I will take Argo on this side. Once I express thanks on behalf of Beyond Law CLC. I will say Argo would go beyond the law CLC and express in general for all the participants, the expression of thanks that you actually accepted or invite, gave the input, gave the insights on a different perspective. And we look forward that whatever convenient day and time, if you can come upon on a different topic on a different issue, which will be having deep insights. Thank you on behalf of Beyond Law CLC to Justice Chandraeshwar, Argo Sehngupta. And the person who got me connected to both of you, to him, I will not name him. Argo knows it very well. Argo, a formal vote of thanks from you because you are moderating also and you are to conclude it also. Okay, thank you. So I'd just like to say first of all, thank you to Justice Chandraeshwar for accepting this invitation. As I had said right at the beginning, Justice Chandraeshwar as it has not appeared in too many of these lockdown Zoom invites. And so it was very sorry. So it was genuinely in lockdown. And for those of you who don't know Justice Chandraeshwar as it lives in a village in rural Andhra Pradesh. 100 days. The interesting aspect is just like he said it is Article 40, right now the participants are also 100. The participants are also 100. So I'm particularly delighted that Justice Chandraeshwar could join us on a topic that is of real interest to lawyers because it's the daily bread and butter of lawyers is the criminal justice system is why it exists for the common man. So I'm delighted that Justice Chandraeshwar both suggested the topic and gave his frank and candid views. I'm also thankful to all the participants more than 142 who turned up for this and many more on Facebook. I know you had many questions, we couldn't take all of them, but thank you very much for coming and asking. And on behalf of Justice Chandraeshwar and myself since I find myself as a bridge in this regard, thank you to Vikas and for Beyond Law CLC for organizing this. It was a real pleasure. Thanks very much. Before we take off tomorrow since the issue of mental training etc has become relevant because of the circumstances which have happened in the past few days, we are holding a webinar tomorrow on mental training and personality development and those two three speakers though it will be more like an interactive session but they are persons well known in India and beyond India to the aspect of mental training which is a relevant point time that once you sometimes you don't meet what you actually expire. So tomorrow we have Dr. Harish Chetty who is a renowned psychiatrist, a pan-Indian world across. Then we have Dr. Mukta Dhamantkar Bharavay. She's a co-founder of Disha Consultancy and founder of Mind Sports. In fact, if we recollect Shri Asa here, when he continuously was hitting back-to-back manner of the matter, he owed this entire mindset to Dr. Mukta that was the transformation. And then we have Mr. Nilesh Kulkarni, a former director of India and then he runs an academy of IISM. These are all three persons are invariably that how to get themselves out in a given circumstances when you are down. Because we all say that you may be down but you cannot be out if you have that grit to come across. And Beyond Law CLC was also a concept during the lockdown. Only with an intent that we should think within the law, beyond law, that is not beyond law to violate the law but for the purposes where you can actually think over an issue and how to bring a better society for it. Thank you everyone. Stay safe, not only the participants who participated in this. Thank you everyone.