E. Editorials

Category: POLITY AND GOVERNANCE

1. The right approach

Syllabus: Structure, Organization and Functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary

Prelims: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Bail procedure

Mains: Criminal Justice Reforms, Fundamental Rights

Context: Supreme Court grants bail to Teesta Setalvad

Observations of the Supreme court :

• Courts should use common sense and fairness when considering bail and should not keep someone in jail simply because the police oppose them.
• The Court found that there was no need for Ms. Setalvad to be in judicial custody, as the case depends mainly on documentary evidence that is part of the charge sheet.
• The Court observed that an order of bail should be the norm unless there is a chance of the accused escaping trial, tampering with evidence etc. 
• The gravity of the offense should not be the sole consideration and is only one of the factors in considering the bail.

Criminal Justice Data: 

• Currently in India, 77% of the incarcerated population comprises undertrials – which means they haven’t been convicted of a crime.
• The period of detention of undertrials is also increasing, indicating that trials are taking longer or bail is being granted in less cases.

The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on Bail: 

• The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not define “bail” but categorizes offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as bailable or non-bailable. 
• The CrPC empowers magistrates to grant bail for bailable offenses as a matter of right, involving release on a bail bond without or with security. Non-bailable offenses are cognizable, allowing police officers to arrest without a warrant, and a magistrate will determine if the accused is fit for release on bail.

Also read The jurisprudence of bail.

Supreme Court’s earlier view on Bail reforms:

• The Court emphasized that arrest is a draconian measure that should be used sparingly, particularly for non-cognizable offenses (offenses for which the police have no authority to arrest without a warrant). 
• Violation of Fundamental Rights: The Court underlined the importance of uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court. Lack of uniformity could lead to violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
• Need to restrict indiscriminate arrests: The Court noted that the culture of too many arrests, especially for non-cognizable offenses, is unwarranted and emphasized that even for cognizable offenses, arrest is not mandatory.
• Reduced insistence on bail applications: The Court held that lower courts must consider granting bail routinely and insistence on bail applications could be reduced. 
• Separate law on Bail: The Court also noted that a separate law for bail is necessary to address the issue of indiscriminate arrests and to ensure that the accused are not treated differently by the same or different courts. The Court emphasized that the Bail Act of the United Kingdom, 1976, provides a good model for bail reform in India.

Case Study: The Bail Act of the United Kingdom, 1976 grants a “general right” to bail presuming bail unless specified. To reject bail, the prosecution must show grounds for believing the defendant would not surrender, commit an offense, or obstruct justice.

Nut Graf: The Supreme Court has granted bail to Teesta Setalvad, emphasizing the need for fairness and justice in bail decisions. Reforms in the criminal justice system should include a uniform approach to bail decisions and reducing the insistence on bail applications. The case study of the Bail Act of the United Kingdom, 1976, provides a good model for bail reform in India.

2. An Internet ban will not restore peace in Manipur

Context: 

• The state of Manipur has been experiencing a period of violent unrest since May 3, 2023. The issue got nationwide attention on July 19 when a  video clip depicting sexual violence committed by a mob in Manipur went viral on social media. 

Role of Internet Shutdown

• Approximately 2.2 million people in Manipur are connected to the internet (Data from Telecom Regulatory Authority of India). Among this, the internet is accessed primarily through smartphones.
• The orders were issued by the Commissioner of Manipur under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017. The Central government, state government and districts are authorized to issue orders under these rules in case of public emergencies. 
• Critics point out that the authorities used vague language to justify the internet shutdowns without any supporting data to show that the internet shutdown has prevented violence.
• This is also in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India case. 
• Reports have surfaced of people in Manipur facing hardships due to the shutdown, such as students running out of money and residents being unable to apply for evacuation to relief camps.

Also read 2023 Manipur Violence Explained.

Judicial Response

• Petitions have been filed in the High Court of Manipur challenging the internet shutdown orders.
• The High Court of Manipur has ordered a partial restoration of internet services, but it has not ruled on the legality of the shutdown orders. This is because the court wants to first assess whether it is possible to provide limited usage of internet services to the public.
• The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Anuradha Bhasin case did not result in the restoration of internet access in any case. The court only asked the government to review all internet shutdown orders. The court’s directions for transparency have not been implemented yet.
• The Court’s decision also carved out greater flexibility for “limited internet shutdowns.” This means that the government can now restrict access to the internet to only government websites, localized/limited e-banking facilities, hospitals services, and other essential services.

Also Read Internet shutdowns in India.

Impact of High Court’s Orders

• The High Court of Manipur has allowed provisional access to the internet for leased lines, wired lines, and mobile internet with certain restrictions. Leased lines are typically used by public departments and corporate offices while the Wired line services require signed undertakings and ban on social media, VPN etc. 

Way forward: 

• The limited access shows that the ban on complete internet access is still continuing in Manipur and the Supreme court has not yet adjudicated on the matter.
• In an internet ban, misinformation spreads instead of decreasing.
• The press report shows that false information led to sexual violence against Kuki-Zo women.
• Information flow is crucial to hold the State and central governments accountable for ensuring truth, justice, and reconciliation.
• Updating and reforming the guidelines issued in the Anuradha Basin case might be a good starting point to ensure accountability from the government. 

Nut Graf: The state of Manipur has been experiencing a period of violent unrest since May 3, 2023. The internet has been shut down in the state since then, and critics say that this has only served to spread misinformation and make it harder for people to access essential services. The High Court of Manipur has ordered a partial restoration of internet services, but the Supreme Court needs to step in to ensure justice and accountability.