Public Perception on Corruption in Criminal Justice System

What this session covered

This NISSMAT webinar examined public perception of corruption across the criminal justice system. It opened with framing remarks, was moderated, and featured three invited speakers who spoke in turn — two with police backgrounds and one a practising lawyer — followed by an open discussion. The opening framing presented corruption as extending through four stages: police, prosecution, judiciary and prison administration. It situated the subject against constitutional protections for the accused — the right against self-incrimination, the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof resting on the prosecution — and against the observation that core criminal statutes date from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries while patterns of crime have changed considerably.

The first speaker traced the colonial origins of the criminal justice agencies and argued that the police and judiciary were largely left outside the reform efforts that followed independence. He discussed the separation of prosecution from the police, a later committee's proposal to adopt elements of an inquisitorial system, prison conditions, and allegations said to reach the higher judiciary, and expressed concern about arrests used as an administrative measure. The second speaker argued that perception itself must be addressed, contending that India's standing on an international corruption-perception index had barely improved in recent years even as it advanced on other measures; he emphasised that delay, case pendency, outdated laws and capacity shortfalls amounted in themselves to a form of injustice, noted foreign investors' concern about corruption, and pointed to improved corporate governance as a possible model. The third speaker set out points in the handling of a case — from registration of a complaint through investigation to prosecution — at which improper payments are said to arise, and argued that firmer leadership, better training, specialist investigators and measures such as CCTV in police stations could substantially reduce such practices.

The subsequent discussion addressed police working hours, the roadmap for reform, and whether ordinary investigating officers are equipped to handle complex financial and cyber offences, with speakers favouring specialist teams and updated training. Closing remarks reiterated that meaningful reform requires attention to the laws, the institutions and individual conduct alike. Several passages referred to specific high-profile arrest cases, a recent police extortion controversy and named individuals; these have been left out of this summary and are flagged for editorial review.

Key points raised

• The session framed corruption as running through four stages of the criminal justice system: police, prosecution, judiciary and prison administration.
• Speakers linked present weaknesses to the colonial origins of the criminal justice agencies and to reform proposals that were largely not implemented after independence.
• One speaker argued that perception must be tackled directly, noting that India's standing on an international corruption-perception index had barely improved in recent years despite gains on other indices.
• Delay, case pendency, outdated statutes and capacity shortfalls were described as themselves amounting to a form of injustice.
• One speaker identified specific stages in police handling of a case at which improper payments are said to arise, and argued that leadership, training and measures such as CCTV could reduce them.
• The discussion considered whether ordinary investigating officers are equipped for complex financial and cyber cases, favouring specialist teams and updated training.