Navigating the Modern Criminal Justice and Police Systems

India’s criminal justice system is one of the oldest and most complex legal architectures in the world. It did not appear overnight – it is the product of thousands of years of evolving social norms, political transitions, and legislative overhauls. From the Vedic concept of Dharma to the landmark new criminal laws that came into force in July 2024, the system has continuously tried to answer one fundamental question: how does a society deal with those who break its rules? Understanding this journey – and where the system stands today – is essential for anyone serious about studying law in India.

Roots of the system: from Dharma to colonial codification
The four pillars: how the system is structured
The legislature
The courts
The corrections system
The police system: origins, structure, and deep-seated problems
Colonial foundations: the Police Act of 1861
Structure of the police force
Key challenges in Indian policing
Landmark reform efforts and judicial intervention
The new criminal laws and the road ahead

Roots of the system: from Dharma to colonial codification

The earliest foundations of criminal justice in India are rooted in the concept of Dharma – the moral and cosmic order that governed conduct in Vedic society. In the Rig-Vedic period, there was no formal judicial institution; punishment for wrongs largely rested with the aggrieved individual or the community elder. The king, described in the Rig-Veda as Gopa janasya (protector of the people), was charged with maintaining order, and texts like Manu’s Dharmashastra and Kautilya’s Arthashastra eventually gave this obligation a structured legal form. Kautilya, in particular, laid out procedures for evidence, judicial conduct, and punishment with remarkable precision for his era.

The medieval period introduced a different legal order. Under the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire, criminal justice drew heavily from Islamic law – the Sharia, the Quran, and the Hadis. The administration of justice during this period suffered from significant deficiencies: there was no clear separation between the judiciary and the executive, and the law was often inconsistently applied, leaving room for corruption and arbitrary interpretation by judges known as Qazis.

The most decisive transformation came with British colonial rule. The establishment of the East India Company introduced a centralized judicial apparatus, and by the mid-nineteenth century, the colonial government had begun systematically codifying Indian law. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) was adopted in 1860, prepared by the first Law Commission under Lord Macaulay, and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) followed in 1861. These two instruments defined crime, prescribed punishment, and established procedural rules – forming the backbone of India’s criminal law for over 160 years.

The four pillars: how the system is structured

India’s criminal justice system rests on four interconnected subsystems: the Legislature (Parliament), Enforcement (police), Adjudication (courts), and Corrections (prisons and rehabilitative facilities). Each component has a distinct role, but they depend on each other to function effectively.

The legislature

Parliament and state legislatures define what constitutes a crime and what punishments apply. This is the starting point for everything else. In a landmark development, three new criminal laws – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – replaced the IPC, CrPC, and Indian Evidence Act respectively, coming into effect on July 1, 2024. These new laws introduce significant changes: mob lynching is now a distinct offence, sedition has been reformulated, and a greater emphasis is placed on forensic evidence over confession-driven investigation.

The courts

India follows an adversarial system of justice inherited from British common law. The judge functions as a neutral fact-finder, not an active inquisitor. The prosecution, led by a Public Prosecutor, presents evidence of guilt, while the defence challenges it. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Courts range from Magistrate Courts at the base to the Supreme Court at the apex, with High Courts in each state handling appeals and supervising subordinate courts.

One of the most persistent concerns with Indian courts is the staggering backlog of cases. Delayed justice remains a systemic problem – and as the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. The Justice V.S. Malimath Committee, which submitted 158 recommendations in 2003, was particularly critical of a system that it found too skewed in favour of the accused and insufficiently sensitive to the needs of victims. Many of those recommendations remain unimplemented.

The corrections system

Prisons are the least visible part of the criminal justice system but arguably the most revealing about a society’s values. The corrections system in India is responsible for housing convicted offenders, holding undertrial prisoners, and theoretically rehabilitating those in its custody. In practice, a large proportion of India’s prison population consists of undertrials – people who have not yet been convicted – which raises serious constitutional questions about personal liberty and the presumption of innocence.

The police system: origins, structure, and deep-seated problems

The police occupy the most visible position in the criminal justice system. They are, as one report notes, the initial point of contact for anyone subjected to crime – responsible for investigating offences and apprehending those who commit them. Yet the Indian police system carries significant structural baggage that continues to affect its functioning today.

Colonial foundations: the Police Act of 1861

The modern Indian police system was established under the Police Act of 1861, designed by the British not to serve the public but to maintain colonial control. It created a centralized, hierarchical force that prioritized order and state authority over community welfare. That act – now 164 years old – continues to serve as the legal foundation for policing across most of India, despite numerous calls for its replacement. While some states have enacted their own police acts post-independence – such as the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and the Kerala Police Act, 1963 – the core issues of accountability and public trust remain largely unaddressed.

Structure of the police force

Under the Indian Constitution, law and order is a state subject, meaning each state has its own police force. The Centre maintains seven Central Armed Police Forces (like CRPF, BSF, CISF) for matters of national security, border management, and internal threats. At the state level, the force is headed by a Director General of Police (DGP), with a hierarchy descending through Inspector General, Deputy Inspector General, Superintendent of Police, and down to the Sub-Inspector and Constable levels at the ground. As of 2024, India has 848 police districts, 18,284 police stations, and 77 police commissionerates.

Key challenges in Indian policing

Understaffing: India has only about 154.84 police officers per 100,000 people, far below the UN-recommended standard of 222. With over 21% vacancies in state police forces, the existing personnel are severely overburdened – often working 16 to 18 hours a day, managing everything from crime investigation to election duty to VIP security detail.

Political interference: The Second Administrative Reforms Commission has noted that the power of superintendence over police has been misused, with ministers deploying police forces for personal and political interests. This politicization directly undermines the rule of law and erodes public confidence in the force’s impartiality.

Public trust deficit: A 2018 CSDS survey found that less than 25% of Indians trust the police. Reports of custodial deaths, corruption at various ranks, and discriminatory treatment of marginalized communities continue to damage the relationship between law enforcement and the public it is meant to serve.

Outdated investigative methods: The 22nd Law Commission noted that the conviction rate for IPC offences is below 50%, and that police lack adequate training in forensic science, cyber laws, and evidence admissibility. The shift toward digital crimes – cyberfraud, deepfakes, online harassment – demands capabilities that much of the force simply does not yet have.

Landmark reform efforts and judicial intervention

India has not been without attempts at reform. The National Police Commission (1977-1981) was the first comprehensive body to examine policing in independent India. It was followed by the Ribeiro Committee (1998), the Padmanabhaiah Committee (2000), and the Malimath Committee (2003). None of these produced national-level legislation. The most consequential intervention came from the judiciary. The landmark judgment in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) saw the Supreme Court issue binding directives to states, including establishing State Security Commissions, ensuring merit-based appointment of the DGP, and setting up Police Complaints Authorities. As of 2020, no Indian state was fully compliant with these directions.

Community policing initiatives offer a more promising grassroots approach. Programs like Janamaithri Suraksha in Kerala, which involves regular non-emergency interactions between police and residents, and Meira Paibi in Assam have shown that building trust at the local level is both feasible and effective. Community policing requires the police to work with the community for crime prevention, order maintenance, and conflict resolution – with the goal of improving quality of life and sense of security. These models, if scaled nationally, could help close the trust gap significantly.

The new criminal laws and the road ahead

The introduction of the BNS, BNSS, and BSA in 2024 represents the most significant overhaul of India’s criminal law framework since the colonial era. The new laws push toward forensic-based investigations, digital evidence, and faster timelines for justice delivery. They are designed to shift policing away from confession-driven methods toward scientific, transparent, and accountable practices. However, laws alone cannot drive change. Structural reform – genuine autonomy for police forces, independent accountability mechanisms, improved training, and depoliticization – must accompany legislative changes for these reforms to have real impact on the ground.

The criminal justice system’s effectiveness ultimately depends on how well its four components – legislature, police, courts, and corrections – work in coordination. When one pillar falters, the entire structure is compromised. A case poorly investigated by the police leads to weak prosecution. An overloaded court causes indefinite pretrial detention. A prison system without rehabilitation produces repeat offenders. Each reform effort must therefore be understood as part of a larger, interconnected whole.

What do you think? Given that India’s policing system still operates largely under a law designed in 1861 to serve colonial interests, how realistic is meaningful reform without dedicated national legislation? And as new criminal laws push for forensic-based investigation over confession-driven methods, what structural changes in police training and resources would actually make that transition possible?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

Roots of the system: from Dharma to colonial codification 🔗

The four pillars: how the system is structured 🔗

The legislature 🔗

The courts 🔗

The corrections system 🔗

The police system: origins, structure, and deep-seated problems 🔗

Colonial foundations: the Police Act of 1861 🔗

Structure of the police force 🔗

Key challenges in Indian policing 🔗

Landmark reform efforts and judicial intervention 🔗

The new criminal laws and the road ahead 🔗