Exploring the Landscape of Criminal Accountability in Justice Systems

Every functioning democracy rests on a foundational promise: that when a law is broken, someone is held responsible. But responsibility in a criminal justice system is not just about punishing the offender – it runs deeper. It extends to every institution tasked with upholding the law, from the legislature that makes it to the prison that enforces its consequences. This is the essence of criminal accountability – a concept that binds together the rule of law, governance, and public trust into one interconnected framework. For law students in India, understanding this landscape is not just academic; it is central to comprehending why justice sometimes succeeds and why it sometimes fails.

What criminal accountability actually means
The role of the legislature in setting the accountability framework
Police: the frontline of criminal accountability
Courts: ensuring fair adjudication
Corrections: accountability beyond conviction
The NHRC and human rights commissions: accountability watchdogs
The media’s role in criminal accountability
Challenges threatening the accountability landscape
Criminal accountability as a collective responsibility

What criminal accountability actually means

Criminal accountability refers to the duty of legal institutions and public bodies to perform their functions effectively, impartially, and transparently in the administration of criminal justice. It encompasses two dimensions: the accountability of individuals who commit crimes (being prosecuted and punished), and the accountability of institutions entrusted with controlling crime.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, India’s criminal justice system operates through four primary subsystems – the legislature (Parliament), enforcement (police), adjudication (courts), and corrections (prisons and community facilities). Each of these carries specific duties, and when any one of them falters, the entire chain of accountability weakens. Criminal accountability, therefore, is not the responsibility of a single actor. It is a collective obligation distributed across an entire system.

The role of the legislature in setting the accountability framework

Any meaningful discussion of criminal accountability must begin with the legislature. Parliament defines what constitutes a crime and prescribes penalties. The laws it enacts form the foundation on which every other institution operates. For over 160 years, India’s criminal law was governed by the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 – all colonial-era statutes that, while repeatedly amended, had grown increasingly misaligned with modern legal and social realities.

That changed significantly on July 1, 2024, when three landmark new laws came into force: the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), replacing the IPC, CrPC, and Evidence Act respectively. These laws signal a shift away from a purely punitive approach toward one that is reformative, victim-centric, and technologically enabled. Crucially, they also introduce stronger accountability mechanisms – mandatory videography during search and seizure, compulsory free copies of FIRs for victims, and the institutionalization of Zero FIR, which allows any police station to register a complaint regardless of jurisdiction.

For the legislature to genuinely uphold criminal accountability, the laws it crafts must be clear, enforceable, and resistant to misuse. Critics have flagged that certain provisions of the BNS – such as Section 152, which addresses acts endangering national integrity – use language that is vague and potentially susceptible to arbitrary application. Legislative accountability, then, is not fulfilled by simply enacting new laws – it requires ongoing scrutiny, debate, and reform.

Police: the frontline of criminal accountability

The police are the first point of contact between a citizen and the justice system. Their role in criminal accountability is enormous – they investigate offences, collect evidence, record FIRs, make arrests, and submit charge sheets to the court. Under Section 161 of the erstwhile CrPC (now mirrored in the BNSS), an investigating officer had the authority to question any person who might have knowledge of the facts of a case.

Yet the police face serious structural and systemic challenges that undermine their accountability. Control over police is fragmented across multiple agencies, which erodes institutional accountability. Low pay, inadequate training, and political interference further contribute to corrupt practices within the force. The National Police Commission (NPC), appointed as early as 1977, had already flagged these issues in eight comprehensive reports submitted between 1979 and 1981. Decades later, many of its recommendations remain only partially implemented.

The new BNSS provisions directly address some of these gaps. Under Sections 173 and 218 of the BNSS, accountability in police investigations is emphasized through clearer guidelines on custody, handcuffing, and solitary confinement. The landmark Supreme Court judgment in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal had earlier laid down guidelines to prevent custodial violence – including that arresting officers must clearly display identification and document all arrest details. These protections now have statutory backing under the reformed framework.

Courts: ensuring fair adjudication

The judiciary sits at the heart of criminal accountability. Courts determine guilt or innocence, impose punishments, and – critically – check the powers of both the legislature and the executive. The fundamental principle at work here is that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof lies entirely with the prosecution.

However, India’s judiciary faces a severe backlog that directly compromises this accountability. As of November 2023, over 30 lakh criminal cases had been pending for more than 10 years, and criminal matters accounted for 74% of all pending cases in lower courts. With only about 21 judges per million people against a recommended target of 50, the system is structurally stretched. Fast-track courts, rather than functioning with dedicated judges and infrastructure, typically involve existing courts redesignated to handle expedited cases – forcing judges to manage both regular and fast-track caseloads simultaneously.

Judicial accountability also requires transparency in appointments and functioning. The Supreme Court itself has acknowledged concerns about the opacity of the Collegium system. Without a credible, transparent system for appointing judges, public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality is inevitably eroded.

Corrections: accountability beyond conviction

The corrections system – prisons, probation, and parole – is often the least visible part of criminal accountability. Yet it is where the justice system’s philosophy is most starkly tested. Imprisonment in India is meant to serve purposes of reformation and rehabilitation through education, vocational training, labour, and even yoga and meditation programmes. In practice, prisons are chronically overcrowded, understaffed, and underfunded.

Criminal accountability demands that the corrections system not merely house offenders but actively work toward their reintegration into society. When prisons fail at this, recidivism rises, public safety suffers, and the entire purpose of the criminal justice framework is defeated. The BNS’s introduction of community service as a form of punishment for petty offences is a meaningful step – it reflects a reformative philosophy that does not default to incarceration for every transgression and prioritizes rehabilitation over retribution.

The NHRC and human rights commissions: accountability watchdogs

Criminal accountability is not policed only from within the system. External oversight bodies play an essential role. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), established on October 12, 1993 under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, functions as an independent statutory watchdog. It investigates complaints of human rights violations, including custodial deaths, wrongful arrests, and police brutality – issues that strike at the very core of criminal accountability.

The NHRC has the powers of a civil court for the purposes of inquiry: it can summon witnesses, requisition public records, and recommend compensation to victims. Its interventions in cases of custodial violence and police brutality have driven reforms in the criminal justice system and protected citizens from state excesses. Its involvement in the Gujarat riots, the Punjab mass cremation cases, and its suo motu cognizance powers – triggered even by media reports – demonstrate how it extends accountability beyond the formal justice system.

That said, the NHRC has real limitations. Its recommendations are advisory, not binding. It cannot enforce compliance. Its UN accreditation was deferred for a second consecutive year in 2024 due to concerns about transparency in appointments, inclusion of police officers in human rights investigations, and inadequate representation of women and minorities within its own composition. This illustrates a broader truth: watchdog bodies must themselves be accountable if they are to lend credibility to the accountability framework they uphold.

At the state level, State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) bring accountability closer to ordinary citizens. Human Rights Courts, functioning as designated Sessions Courts, provide a judicial arm specifically for trying offences arising from human rights violations – ensuring that accountability does not remain merely at the level of recommendation but can translate into prosecution and sentencing.

The media’s role in criminal accountability

Beyond formal institutions, the media functions as an informal but powerful accountability mechanism. Investigative journalism has exposed custodial deaths, wrongful convictions, and police excesses that official channels often fail to address. The NHRC itself takes suo motu cognizance of matters based on media reports – a recognition that the press can initiate accountability processes that might otherwise remain dormant.

Both print and electronic media carry a responsibility toward society in controlling the spread of information that impacts criminal justice. However, media accountability in criminal matters is a double-edged concern. Sensationalist coverage, trial by media, and premature conclusions about guilt can compromise the fairness of trials. Criminal accountability requires that even the media exercise its watchdog function within a framework of responsibility and accuracy.

Challenges threatening the accountability landscape

Despite a substantial legal and institutional framework, criminal accountability in India faces persistent structural challenges. Delayed trials, political interference, inefficient investigations, low conviction rates, and inadequate victim and witness protection mechanisms continue to erode public trust in the justice system. These are not isolated failures – they compound each other. A weak investigation leads to poor prosecution, which leads to acquittals, which signals to the public that accountability is elusive.

The Malimath Committee Report on criminal justice reform had highlighted the urgent need for a culture of accountability within every pillar of the system – the police, the prosecution, and the judiciary alike. The goal, as it has always been, is to ensure maximum detection of reported crimes, conviction without undue delay, and appropriate punishment – balanced with the protection of the innocent and the rights of the accused.

Criminal accountability as a collective responsibility

One of the most important lessons from a study of criminal accountability is that no single institution can carry its weight alone. The legislature must enact clear, just, and enforceable laws. The police must investigate without fear or favour. Prosecutors must pursue cases diligently. Courts must adjudicate fairly and without indefinite delay. Prisons must focus on reformation, not merely detention. Human rights bodies must provide independent oversight. And the media must inform without prejudicing justice.

This collective architecture matters deeply for good governance. When any component fails, the entire system’s legitimacy suffers. India’s 2024 criminal law reforms, framed with the spirit of “Citizen First, Dignity First, and Justice First,” represent an important step toward modernizing this framework – but laws on paper are only as effective as the institutions implementing them. Restoring and strengthening public faith in the criminal justice system requires sustained commitment from every actor within it.

What do you think? If the NHRC’s recommendations are advisory and not binding, does it truly serve as an effective accountability mechanism – or does enforcement power need to be built into its mandate? And given that the media can trigger NHRC suo motu action, where should the line be drawn between investigative journalism and the risk of compromising a fair trial?

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

What criminal accountability actually means 🔗

The role of the legislature in setting the accountability framework 🔗

Police: the frontline of criminal accountability 🔗

Courts: ensuring fair adjudication 🔗

Corrections: accountability beyond conviction 🔗

The NHRC and human rights commissions: accountability watchdogs 🔗

The media’s role in criminal accountability 🔗

Challenges threatening the accountability landscape 🔗

Criminal accountability as a collective responsibility 🔗