Abstract
The Indian criminal judiciary, rooted in the opposing Anglo -saxon model, is plagued by systemic inefficiency, corruption and outdated legal framework. Despite the presence of complex legislation, such as the Indian Penal Code (1860), Code of Criminal Procedure (1973) and the Indian evidence Act, the system is fighting with delayed courts, congested judiciary, ineffective police and insufficient victims. The police forces, which are governed by the Archaic Police of 1861, suffer from lack of work, lack of modernization and political interference, leading to a deterioration of law enforcement. Similarly, the judiciary faces large -scale waiting cases, slow processes, and increasing cases of corruption, which reduces public confidence. The rights of victims remain insufficiently developed, with limited legal recognition and poor mechanisms for compensation. This document critically examines these shortcomings and advocates of the shift towards a model of restorative justice, which prefers the rights of victims, judicial liability and police reform to ensure a fairer and more efficient system of criminal judiciary in India.
Keywords
Criminal Justice System, Police Reforms, Judicial Delays, Victim Rights, Restorative Justice, Legal Reforms
Introduction
The administration of criminal justice in India follows the Anglo-Saxon model, which over time evolved in response to socio-economic and political conditions prevailing in various historical periods. As in any developed society, the Indian criminal justice system has undergone significant transformations and its goals and the approaches of the proceedings adapted to changing circumstances. The Anglo -Saxon contradictory system includes four key components: police, prosecution, judiciary and corrective institutions. These elements work in a connected and coordinated way and ensure that justice is supplied effectively, fairly and quickly. The effectiveness of the administration of criminal judiciary largely depends on the effectiveness and synergy between these entities. If any of these units fail to play its role effectively, this may have an impact on the overall functioning of the system. Therefore, close cooperation and cooperation between these components are necessary to achieve the objectives of criminal judiciary in a fair and fair way.
Research Methodology:
This study uses a qualitative research approach based on secondary data from legal regulations, cases, government reports and academic literature. The comparative analysis is carried out to identify the gaps within the existing framework and evaluating the proposed reforms. Forensic precedents and expert opinions are also examined to provide a comprehensive understanding of shortcomings in the Indian criminal judiciary.
An Overview of the Indian Criminal Justice System
Criminal law in India is derived from several sources. The Indian Criminal Code (IPC) of 1860 serves as the primary law on crime, supplemented by various special and local laws. These include the 1955 Civil Rights Act, the 1961 ban on the 1961 prohibition and the planned caste and planned tribes (atrocities prevention) of 1989, which together specify what criminal acts are under Indian law. The Act on Indian Evidence lays down rules regulating the admissibility of evidence in Indian courts and ensures a structured legal framework for courts. The Code of Criminal Proceedings (CRPC), 1973, also provides procedural guidelines for the prosecution of criminal offenses. It increases the framework for the functioning of criminal courts, procedures for police investigation, arrest, court proceedings and overall court proceedings. While CRPC and other legal laws comprehensively solve most of the legal situations, the Indian criminal justice system operates in the complex structure of legal laws and forensic precedents. The legal framework monitors the system of general law and allows judges to interpret the law in a way that ensures the best and fairest results. This system of the court precedent (Stare Decisis) makes it possible to deduce the legal principles of past decisions, thus filling in gaps where specific legal regulations may be insufficient. However, the principles of general law apply only to areas where legal law is silent and cannot be contrary to explicit legislative provisions. Components of the criminal judiciary system The criminal judiciary system in any country includes several key units that work together to maintain law and order. In India are the basic components of this system:
- Police organization – responsible for maintaining public ranking, prevention of crime, crime investigation and law enforcement.
- Prosecution – represents the state in legal proceedings and ensures that the perpetrators be prosecuted on the basis of evidence and legislation.
- The courts – the judicial authorities that carry out court proceedings interpret laws and issue judgments on the basis of evidence and legal arguments.
- Correctional units – institutions that focus on rehabilitation, reformation and re -integrating convicted individuals back into society. Each of these components plays a key role in ensuring the effective administration of criminal judiciary, with their coordinated efforts to determine the overall effectiveness and justice of the system.
1. Police Organisation
The Police Act of 1861 is largely controlled by Indian police forces to make them a “more effective tool for preventing and detecting crime”. Police law gives every state government the power to establish its own police forces. In addition to the Police Act, other legal regulations such as criminal proceedings, Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita now also regulates police operations. In each state, the general police administration in the state is responsible for the general inspector of the police, which is currently designated as the CEO of the police. At the level of the state, the administration of police and police activities in each district is carried out by the district police supervisor under the supervision of the district judge. In cities with a police commissioner, the police district is led by a representative of the police commissioner. Each police station is managed by a police officer called The Station House Officer (sho). Sho is in charge of the management of the police station, the functioning of their employees and other obligations regarding the detection, investigation and prevention of crimes. Under the Police Act of 1861, other officers of higher rank can exercise the same powers as the Sho in their local area of appointment. In the end, although a policeman has less powers than sho, they still have several powers under Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, such as the ability to arrest and search. . Some states use the Police Commissioner’s system, while others use the above -mentioned system of traditional headquarters. It is also important to realize that the police are not above the law. The police must not behave as they like or violate the law just because they wear a badge. The person should prevent their rights from their rights in relation to the police. Under the Police Act of 1861, a police officer may contradict his duties for up to three months of remuneration or imprisonment for up to three months or both.
2. The Prosecution
In criminal proceedings, the prosecutor or assistant to the state prosecutor is represented and is responsible for the prosecution of the accused. The prosecutors hold key positions in the administration of justice and ensure that the court proceedings are carried out fairly and in accordance with the law. The Indian Legal Commission in its 14th report outlined the role of the prosecutor and stressed that the primary objective of the criminal proceedings is to find out the guilt or innocence of the accused. Unlike the advocate representing a private party, the prosecutor represents the interests of the state and must prosecute with the highest level of justice. The prosecutor is expected to remain neutral and impartial about the outcome of the case. Their obligation is not to ensure conviction, but to submit all available evidence before court – whether it supports or weakens against the accused. This ensures that the court has access to all relevant facts, allowing him to come to the truth. The role of the prosecutor is therefore as crucial as the role of the judiciary itself. The integrity and impartiality of the prosecution process are necessary to maintain justice and ensure that legal proceedings are not about victory or loss, but to comply with the rule of law.
3. Courts
The Indian judicial system is modeled after the British legal framework. The enforcement of criminal law is the responsibility of individual state governments, which means that each state has its own state courts to handle criminal cases. The judiciary is structured to different levels: Judges’ courts at the district level, Sessions Courts of Mid -level and Supreme Courts at state level. At the national level, the Supreme Indian court serves as the highest judicial authority. Most individuals interact with lower and middle courts and approach a higher court only if they appeal or if they are appealed. When a person is accused of a crime, the first court authority they encounter is the judge. Municipalities are classified into two categories: Court judges who deal with criminal cases and Executive judges, appointed by the state government, whose powers are primarily limited to maintaining public order and solving civic affairs. In rural areas, executive judges can be referred to as MunSifs. In large cities, court judges are known as metropolitan judges who have the same powers as other court judges. The judges are acting within the structured hierarchy, including: The main court judges, Other main court judges and Sub-division judges. These officials are appointed by the High Court, while the main court judge is supervised, supervised and directed by all other court judges in the district. After consulting with the High Court, each government determines the establishment of court courts, where the judges have the first and second class jurisdiction in specific cases. Higher courts in India Most Indian states have a High Court, which primarily processes the appeal of lower courts. In rare cases, high courts also perform original jurisdiction over certain matters. At the peak of the Indian court system is the Supreme Court, which is the final body on all legal issues. While the general public rarely comes into direct contact with the Supreme Court, its decision significantly affects the legal environment of the country. The Supreme Court’s decisions are binding on all state courts that must be observed by its interpretation of the law. Similarly, the High Court’s decision is binding on the lower courts within their relevant jurisdictions, but do not apply to the Supreme Court or other state courts. However, all courts in India are eventually subject to the Supreme Court’s decision and ensure the uniformity and consistency in legal interpretations across the country.
Review of Criminal Law
Criminal law consists of two basic components: substantial criminal law and procedural law. The serious criminal law defines crimes by determining the act and the mental state of the needed to be considered a criminal offense, together with the corresponding sanctions. Procedural criminal law regulates the activities of courts, prosecutors and coercive bodies. It outlines the legal procedures for the processing of accused individuals, investigating and conducting court proceedings. The crime is generally understood as an act or omission forbidden by law. Many criminal laws require a certain state of mind, such as intention to determine criminal liability. While some crimes have clear individual sacrifices, others are criminalized on the basis of the state’s evaluation that they cause the harm of society as a whole. As a result, the state will take responsibility for the prosecution of the accused of committing a crime. The primary objective of procedural law is to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial. The fair process involves the balance of the rights of the accused, the victim and the wider public interest. The contradiction system in India India is governed by the contradictory or action system of criminal judiciary, as determined under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CRPC). In this system: Defense and prosecution submit their cases in public proceedings before an impartial judge. The defendant is considered innocent until he is proven guilty of a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is entirely on prosecution. The accused has the right against self -blaming. The contradue model is based on the idea that the truth appears to be confronted between the enemy parties, because each side is motivated to present its strongest case. The judge plays a neutral and passive role in this system, ensures procedural justice, determines the admissibility of evidence, and ultimately decides whether the accused is guilty. In the Ram Chander v. State of Haryan, however, Judge Chinnappa Reddy claimed that the judges should not be completely passive. He criticized the tendency of judges to act as a mere arbitration in the legal competition between prosecution and defense. He claimed that judges had to actively play in court proceedings for effective equality of justice and to involve witnesses to reveal the truth. The Committee on Criminal Justice has also noted that Indian judges tend to be too passive, even within the contradictory system, often staying the necessary steps to discover the truth in their efforts to maintain neutrality. Principles for revision of CRPC from 1973 The 1973 criminal proceedings were followed by the following principles: A righteous process: Each accused should receive a fair trial in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Avoiding delay: delay in investigation and tests damages not only individuals involved but also society, so that the effort should be developed to prevent them. Simplified procedure: The legal process should be direct and should ensure fair treatment of economically disadvantaged parts of society. The aim of these reforms was to increase the more efficient, more affordable system of Indian criminal judiciary and, while maintaining the basic principle that no person should be convicted without a convincing proof of guilt.
DEFECTS OF THE ADVERSARIAL MODEL
The Indian criminal judiciary system is governed by the contradictory model of the general law, the inheritance of the British colonial government. This system is structured as a bilateral process where prosecution and defense presents contradictory arguments before an impartial judge. Justice is achieved when the most convincing attorney is successfully convinced by the judge of their versions of the events. In this system, coercive bodies, especially the police, are responsible for investigating. However, several restrictions on the contradictory system have been identified: The system tends to be accused, often ignores the rights and suffering of victims. Long attempts and delay make this process time consuming and costly. The effectiveness of legal representation can affect court decisions, allowing judges to be convinced by qualified lawyers, sometimes leading to unfair results. The setting of the courtroom is similar to the battlefield, where the primary focus is to win a legal competition rather than to reveal absolute truth. Prescosions in the area of law enforcement can lead to ineffective investigations that are influenced by factors such as socio -economic status, political connection and cultural background, which undermines equality before the law. Rule of law and criminal judiciary The basic principle of any democratic legal system is a rule of law that shows that no one is above the law and the law applies equally to all individuals. In the ancient Indian jurisprudence, especially during the era of Smithis, the administration of justice was considered to be the primary duty of the king. The concept of the king was rooted in the recovery of Dharma, ensured justice and punished those who violated it. According to Smithis, the King, who neglected this duty, risked that he had brought a disaster to himself and his people. This tradition emphasizes the idea that the rulers were also subject to the law. As the judiciary of S. Ratnavel Pandian, a former judge of the Supreme Court, noted, this principle confirms that the law is the highest, although the king himself serves as a legislature. In a modern democratic framework, the maximum “king cannot do bad” and even legislators are bound by the superiority of the law. Rig Veda strengthens this concept and states: “The law is the king of the kings, much stronger and more rigid than them; under his help, even weak can win over the strong.” This doctrine of legal domination is regulated by every aspect of the legal system and remains the central point of the Indian framework of criminal judiciary. The basic principles of criminal law The Indian criminal judiciary system is based on three basic legal principles: Prerequisite of innocence – every accused person is considered innocent until guilt is proven. Load Proof – Responsibility for evidence of guilt of the accused lie entirely to prosecution. A fair trial – each individual is entitled to fair and impartial court proceedings and ensures a balance between the rights of the accused, victims and public interest. These principles are enshrined in criminal proceedings, 1973 (CRPC) and ensure that the criminal judiciary system is in a way that is fair, transparent and fair.
(A)PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE:
In the ordinary law system, the assumption of the innocence means that each individual is considered innocent until the wine has been proven out of reasonable doubt. A person accused of a crime is not obliged to make any statements or to provide an explanation that could arouse suspicion against them. The Indian Supreme Court reaffirmed this basic principle of criminal jurisprudence and stressed that the burden of proof lies only on prosecution, unless the specific law otherwise states. This principle was mentioned in particular in the case of Woolmington v. DPP, which has shown that it is the duty to prove the blame of the accused person. Assumption of innocence in international and constitutional law The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) pursuant to Article 11 confirms that: “Anyone accused of a crime has the right to be considered innocent until it is proven guilty in the public process, made under the law, where they receive all the necessary guarantees for their defense.” Similarly, Article 49 of the Russian Constitution states: “Anyone accused of crime is considered innocent until their fault is determined in accordance with the Federal law and confirms the final court judgment.” He further explains that “the defendant is not obliged to prove his innocence” and “any reasonable doubt must be interpreted in favor of the accused”. Although the Constitution of the United States does not explicitly mention the assumption of innocence, it is widely derived from the 5th, 6th and 14th and 14th changes that jointly protect the rights of individuals accused of crimes. This principle ensures that it is not considered guilty with a person if their fault is not determined according to proper legal processes.
(B) Burden of Proof:
In England and India, the fundamental principle of criminal law is that the accused is considered innocent until the fault is proven. The prosecution is responsible for determining all necessary elements of the crime. This principle is based on three key reasons: Control of proceedings – prosecution has the advantage in the legal process management. The location of the defendant’s burden would deny them a fair chance to defend themselves. Access to investigative sources – prosecution benefits from extensive investigative sources that the defendants are generally not accessible, leading to imbalance. Risk of incorrect condemnation – if the burden of proof was moved to the accused, the courts could be forced to condemn in case of uncertainty, increasing the risk of abortion of justice. Judicial Interpretation and Legal Provisions Lord Atkin, in Basile Reager Lawrence v. King, stressed that criminal accusations must be demonstrated undoubtedly by prosecution. In Indian law, no person can be convicted unless there is sufficient evidence to prove his guilt out of reasonable doubt. Section 101 of the Act on Indian Evidence of 1872 states that the liability for proving the fact is that the person carries out the claim. The Supreme Court in India, Bhagwan Singh v., Reaffirmed that it is advantageous for the wine individuals to be punished than to be convinced by an innocent person. However, it is the main principle rather than an absolute rule of law.
(C) FAIR TRIAL FOR ACCUSED:
The right to a fair trial is the basic claim of the accused person in the criminal judiciary. The courts consistently confirmed that the main objective of the criminal proceedings is to ensure that the accused receives a fair and impartial trial. The key elements of the fair process are listed in Articles 10 and 11 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 10 claims that each individual is entitled to equal access to a fair and public hearing led by an independent and impartial court in determining their rights, obligations or criminal charges. Article 11 states that any person accused of crime has the right to be considered innocent until it is proven guilty of public proceedings that adhere to the proper process and provides adequate warranties for their defense. The Legal Commission acknowledged that the fair trial includes not only the impartiality of the judge and the place of the proceedings, but also the overall conduct of the court proceedings, which must be marked by a fair prosecution and court environment without bias. Importantly, justice must not only be done, but it also seems to be done. Among the most important rights of the defendants, including suspects or detained products, is the right to life. In the dominant case, Maneka Gandhi interpreted the Supreme Court of India Article 21 of the Constitution and decided that the procedure stipulated by law must be fair and reasonable. The Court emphasized that any legal process should adhere to the principles of natural justice and must not be arbitrary, oppressing or excessive.
(D) FAIR TRIAL FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME:
In India, it is widely acknowledged that victims lack legal rights and protection that would enable them to actively participate in criminal proceedings. For the victims of crime and their families, it is essential during trials because they seek to witness justice to be delivered. They want to observe the arguments submitted by a legal lawyer as well as the reaction of the judge, the jury and the accused. However, the criminal judiciary system imposes a restriction of this right to concern that the involvement of the victim could be contrary to the rights of the accused. As a result, the victims are usually allowed to be present in court only to the extent that their presence does not interfere with the defendant’s rights or permission under the rules of evidence. These restrictions can sometimes lead to distorted proceedings and disrupt justice management. Two primary victims are generally recognized in the context of a fair process: The right to participate in criminal proceedings, which includes the right to be present, the right to hear, the right to the request and the right to help the court in the revelation of the truth. However, the participation of victims is often criticized because it is perceived to undermine the rights of the accused. The right to seek and obtain compensation from the Criminal Court for the damage and reasonable interim relief during the legal process. While the principle of compensating the victims of crime has long been recognized, it is often considered to be a symbolic gesture rather than a substantive form of punishment or meaningful drug.
Problems and Suggestions
Outdated Police Structure:
A. Insufficient manpower
B. Lack of sophisticated weapons and modern equipment .
C. Sub standard professional environment
D. No proper periodical training.
OUTDATED POLICE STRUCTURE
Problems in Outdated Police Structure :
The structure of the Police Organization in India continues to be governed by the Police Act of 1861, according to which Section 23 orders for a police officer to immediately manage and exercise all legally issued orders from any competent authority. This provision allows civil and political executive bodies to carry out control of the police. As a result, third -degree methods remain predominant, as the Directive on the use of these practices for suspects in police custody often comes from these so -called competent authorities, which potentially leads to detention and poor handling. Despite more recommendations for police reforms, including recommendations, which have since 1979 the National Police Commission since 1979, subsequent central and state governments have not consistently made meaningful changes. The police force continues to be exploited, neglected and undervalued entity and lacks even the most basic working conditions. Instead of serving the public, they are often perceived as subordinate to those who are in power. In addition, police staff face bad salaries, demanding working conditions, insufficient housing and minimal job security that contribute to their difficult professional environment.
A) Insufficient Manpower
In the Indian police system, it represents most of the power of Constabulary with a lower rating. A significant part of the police staff is assigned to VIP security, which reduces the number of officers available to prevent crime, investigation and detection. In addition, there is no clear division within the police forces between the coercive authorities and the investigative roles, leading to an excessive load of individual officers. This lack of labor in the police administration deepens inefficiency and contributes to the neglect of crime victims, which further worsens their situation within the criminal judiciary system.
B) Lack of sophisticated weapons and modern equipments :
There is no “modernization” throughout the police administration. The Indian police administration is still not equipped with a better communication system; Better investigation and the latest sophisticated weapons, because criminals and criminals are armed with the latest equipment and modern sophisticated weapons.
C) Sub standard professional environment :
Police staff have very few holidays and very little time for their families. While they are on duty, they have too many tasks and duties and duties are routine and monotonous. They also face the problem of poor facilities in their stations and offices. Lack of men, vehicles, stationary items, weapons, communication equipment, furniture, etc. They leave them seriously affected for most of the time. He suffers from insufficient medical facilities for housing.
D) No proper periodical training:
Recruitment systems for the constable that make up the main segments The strength is accepted directly from the open market with a minimum qualifications. This method seems not to be complete evidence because many concentrated elements entered Constabulary. So the recruitment system appears to be defective.
DEFECTIVE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Questions on the credibility of the judiciary are being raised due to mounting arrears of cases, delay in disposal & high cost of obtaining justice, poor treatment and ignored protection of witnesses. So also the rising level of corruption in the judicial system added fuel to the fire. All these factors tend to encourage the rule of the jungle where there is one rule that is might is incarnated right, and rights are metamorphosed might.
Some of the major problems in judicial system are as follows :
• Defective Functioning :-
1. Delay in disposal of cases
2. Huge backlog of cases
3. Lack of sufficient fast track courts
4. Lack of mobile courts
• Witness related Problems:-
1. Poor treatment of witnesses
2. No protection for witnesses
- DEFECTIVE FUNCTIONING :-
- Delay in disposal of cases
A procedure that does not provide attempts and liquidation in a reasonable period cannot be considered as righteous, fair and proportionate. Many times contribute to the liberation of wine, either because the evidence is lost or because of time, or witnesses do not remember all details or not log in to provide real evidence due to threats, stimuli or compassion. In our existing legal system, adjournments are more frequent than ever. In normal court proceedings, the postponement of the hearing means for the next six months. For various reasons, there may be any number of such adjournings, including illness, strikes of lawyers, strikes of court workers and the transfer of a court official, etc.
- HUGE BACKLOG OF CASES
Our Constitution sets an independent and effective system of providing justice. The delay in the disposal of cases not only creates disillusionment between disputes, but also undermines the ability of the system to transmit justice effectively and effectively. Due to such deficiencies in the system, huge arrears have accumulated at all levels and must be urgently detected by ways and means to give them a manageable limit to maintain the belief of common man.Influx of cases is also a sign of faith imposed by people in justice and is The fact that faith, among other things, is one of the reasons for explosion docket. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh spoke hard on August 16, 2009 by first mentioning in court history – the pending 3 Crore cases in courts as “disaster” and promised that the government would take two steps for each step to be removed to remove this meter.
- LACK OF SUFFICIENT FAST TRACK COURTS
On the recommendation of the 11th Financial Commission it is urgent to formulate a similar system for the establishment of permanent rapid courts of judges in each state and trade union.
- LACK OF MOBILE COURTS IN RURAL AREAS
Mobile courts are also established that would not only educate rural people about their rights and obligations and provide rapid justice and create a sense of law and judiciary that are very close to them, but also help to tell the expanding doctor of our overloaded courts.
- Witness related Problems:-
- POOR TREATMENT OF WITNESSES.
The current judicial system often considers witnesses for granted. They are summoned to the court without considering their financial restrictions, personal responsibility or inconvenience caused by the abandon of their families, businesses or jobs. In addition, they are not sufficiently compensated for their time, effort and expenses. However, challenges do not end. After reaching the court, many witnesses face repeated adjournments, sometimes indefinitely, and the lawyer is simply assigned another date. In Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab The Supreme Court noted: “The witness must attend the court at his own expense every time the case is postponed. Now he has often become a trend often to postpone cases, which eventually exhausts the witness to give up. ” The court also stated that the unjustified adjournment causes the judicial system to connect in the defence of justice. Moreover, witnesses often tolerate long waiting hours and when they finally testify, they are exposed to an intensive cross -country examination, treated as if they were accused themselves.
- IGNORED PROTECTION OF WITNESSES
Programs and laws on witness protection are simply a need for an hour; & Strong reminder of this is the inability of the state to bring to the judiciary involved in Gujarat. In fact, it is the absence of these laws that helped to further strengthen criminals and offenders. It is irony that in India such programs and laws are far from reality. The criminal case is based on the building of evidence that is permissible by law. For this reason, witnesses are, be it direct or indirect evidence, witnesses are harassed. In addition, the witness is bribed, endangered, kidnapped, even crippled or started. For all These reasons and many others, the person refers to witnessing. And the less we talk about the venalita of the system, the better.
Conclusion
The present condition of the Indian Criminal Justice System, as evidenced by the defective workings of its major principal components such as the police (i.e., enforcement agency); the judiciary (i.e., adjudication) and; the correctional institutions in conjunction with the prevailing mass corruption from the political perspectives has revealed the various anomalies/deficiencies therein which trample the victim’s rights and needs and, as a result, shattered the basic aim of the Criminal Justice System. Though, a victim of crime is a universal phenomenon. India draws special attention because of its high prevalence of injustice to the victims of crime due to absence of any uniform law relating to compensating them. It is further frustrated by the fact that most of the offenders do not have the capacity to pay – hence may prefer jail term which in no case serves the interest of the victim except his vengeance. Injustice to the victims of crime is a socio-legal problem. The Government of India from time to time has been taking measures to control the problem of injustice to the victims of crime and certainly there is some improvement but the progress is slow and something more has to be done regarding the elimination of injustice to the victims of crime. In a nut-shell, the enormous deficiencies of the prevailing criminal justice system provides a justification for initiating in-depth research on the use of the restorative justice system as an alternate perspective for the worst situation to promote the rule of law and not the rule of the jungle.
Name of the Author – Mahek Premchandani
Name of College- NMIMS Kirit.P.Mehta School of Law