Search Results

Abstract Globally and in India, artificial intelligence (AI) is being progressively incorporated into a number of fields, including the criminal justice system. Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds great promise to transform the ways in which law enforcement, the judiciary, and penal institutions function by processing vast amounts of data, seeing trends, and doing predictive analysis. However, given the nation's legal system, socioeconomic diversity, and privacy, transparency, and fairness concerns, integrating AI into India's criminal justice system also poses special hurdles. One of the most important places where AI will come in handy is when it improves decision-making processes by basing decisions on data insights. For example, it can allow agencies that are tasked with enforcing the law to predict criminal behavior. Predictive analytics can guide law enforcement agencies on what kinds of crimes to anticipate, helping them point their resources better in preventing crime before it occurs.  The implementation of AI in India's criminal justice system does, however have its challenges. The most prominent would be algorithmic bias, especially given a country like India-its vastness and diversity such that both caste and religion and even economic background subtly affect data sets and thus, training of AI systems. Algorithms can lead to just outcomes but biased algorithms instead replay the reign of discrimination through policing, sentencing, and incarceration. Another major concern is about the absence of any data protection. Similar to other industries, the criminal justice system of India operates on a huge amount of personal information. However, without any specific law for data protection in place, such as the long-awaited Personal Data Protection Bill, there arises a grave doubt about how that information is being collected and used.  Another major challenge within AI-driven decisions is the lack of transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. The very opaque nature of AI algorithms, sometimes called "black boxes," makes it hard for any person to either comprehend or contest decisions made by AI systems. Legally speaking, this raises ethical questions about due process and the right to a fair hearing. AI can give India's criminal justice system the ability to increase its effectiveness; however, the introduction of AI must be taken with caution. Therefore, any use of AI in policing, sentencing, or rehabilitation should be as much backed by robust legal frameworks, high ethical standards, and a spirit of fairness and transparency.  Introduction Artificial Intelligence (AI) has rapidly evolved from a futuristic concept to a transformative technology that is reshaping industries, societies, and economies across the globe. AI, defined as the simulation of human intelligence by machines through learning, reasoning, and self-correction, is being applied across a wide range of sectors such as healthcare, finance, education, and criminal justice. The ability of AI to process vast amounts of data, make predictions, automate processes, and even simulate decision-making processes traditionally reserved for humans has made it a critical component of modern technological advancements. AI has seen substantial growth across multiple industries, where its ability to enhance efficiency, improve decision-making, and reduce costs has led to widespread adoption. Below are some of the sectors where AI has made a significant impact: The healthcare sector has seen an extraordinary surge in the use of AI-driven tools. AI is utilized in diagnostic systems, medical imaging, personalized medicine, drug discovery, and treatment recommendations. For instance, machine learning algorithms can analyze medical data and detect patterns that are often too subtle for human doctors to observe.  AI is transforming education by enabling personalized learning, automating administrative tasks, and enhancing accessibility. AI-powered learning platforms can analyze a student’s performance and adapt content to suit their learning style and pace, thereby offering tailored educational experiences.  In the finance sector, AI has been applied to fraud detection, algorithmic trading, credit risk assessment, and personalized banking services. AI systems can detect unusual transaction patterns that may indicate fraud and block such transactions in real-time. In stock trading,  As AI continues to permeate multiple sectors, its presence in the criminal justice system has become increasingly prominent. AI-driven technologies are being used at various stages of the criminal justice process, including law enforcement, judicial decision-making, and correctional facilities.  However, its use also raises concerns about fairness, transparency, and accountability. AI-powered facial recognition technology has become a powerful tool for identifying suspects, solving crimes, and enhancing surveillance. One of the most widely used risk assessment tools used in the United States is COMPAS (Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions). It’s an algorithmic risk assessment tool developed by Northpointe (now known as Equivant) to predict the likelihood of a criminal defendant reoffending. This tool considers various factors such as criminal history, age, and social and economic background to classify defendants by their risk levels for recidivism. Other tools,which are also used in the United States are PSA (Public Safety Assessment), also assess the risk of defendants committing crimes or skipping court appearances. It is a pretrial risk assessment tool primarily used to assist judges in making informed decisions about whether a defendant should be detained or released before trial. The PSA evaluates factors such as the defendant's criminal history, likelihood of appearing in court, and potential risk to public safety. In India, while there is no exact equivalent of the PSA, similar efforts are made to assess a defendant's risk and suitability for bail, primarily based on judicial discretion and traditional factors such as the nature of the crime, past criminal records, and whether the accused might flee. AI technologies are also being used to assist in sentencing decisions by providing judges with data on the typical sentencing ranges for specific crimes and the predicted impact of various sentencing options. AI tools can analyze vast amounts of sentencing data to help judges make more consistent and fair decisions. However, concerns remain about the ethical implications of using AI to determine a person’s future based on predictive algorithms. One of the primary applications of AI in corrections is the use of backsliding prediction models. These models analyze data such as an inmate’s criminal history, education level, and behavior in prison to predict their likelihood of reoffending after release. This information is used by parole boards to assess whether an inmate is ready for release and to tailor rehabilitation programs that address specific risk factors. The rise of AI across various sectors, including criminal justice, is reshaping how societies operate. In criminal justice, AI has the potential to enhance public safety, reduce crime, and improve judicial efficiency. However, it also presents significant ethical challenges, including concerns about bias, transparency, accountability, and privacy. As AI continues to evolve, it is essential to develop robust legal and ethical frameworks to ensure that AI technologies are used responsibly and fairly in the criminal justice system. This will require collaboration between technologists, policymakers, legal experts, and civil society to strike the right balance between innovation and justice. History and Evolution of AI Globally in Criminal Justice The journey of AI in criminal justice began long before AI, as we know it today, became part of mainstream discourse. In the early stages, the focus was on automating the analysis of criminal data, integrating computer systems into law enforcement, and using technology to aid investigations. Early Foundations (1960s-1990s) In the 1960s and 1970s, law enforcement agencies started to digitize crime records, creating searchable databases of criminal incidents, fingerprints, and mugshots. The National Crime Information Center (NCIC), launched by the FBI in USA in 1967, was one of the earliest examples of an automated system that allowed police departments across the United States to share information on stolen property, criminal records, and wanted persons. The 1980s and 1990s saw the rise of computer-aided forensic techniques. Automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS) became widespread, allowing law enforcement agencies to compare fingerprints more efficiently and accurately. The Rise of Predictive Policing (2000s-2010s) With a move toward risk assessment tools and predictive policing, the 2000s saw the start of AI's more active engagement in criminal justice. With the advancement of large-scale machine learning algorithms, artificial intelligence (AI) is now able to manage risks, anticipate illegal conduct, and support legal choices.Predictive policing emerged as one of the earliest and most controversial applications of AI in law enforcement. Algorithms designed to analyze historical crime data were developed to predict future crime patterns and identify potential crime hotspots. While predictive policing showed potential for improving crime prevention, it also raised significant concerns about algorithmic bias and discrimination. Critics argued that such systems perpetuated racial and socioeconomic biases present in historical crime data, leading to over-policing of minority communities. AI in Surveillance and Facial Recognition (2010s-Present) By the 2010s, AI technology had matured significantly, with advances in machine learning, computer vision, and neural networks giving rise to sophisticated surveillance systems, facial recognition technologies, and AI-driven investigative tools. Facial recognition technology, powered by AI, emerged as a powerful tool in law enforcement, capable of identifying individuals in real-time from surveillance footage, CCTV cameras, and social media platforms. AI-driven facial recognition systems were deployed by police departments in countries like the United States, China, and the United Kingdom for various purposes. While these tools have proven effective in preventing crimes and improving public safety, they have also raised questions about mass surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties. AI in corrections (Present and Future) In recent years, AI has also made inroads into corrections and rehabilitation, offering tools that assist in monitoring inmates, predicting recidivism, and tailoring rehabilitation programs to individual needs. Artificial Intelligence has been utilized to forecast recidivism, or the probability that a person will commit a new crime after being released from jail. These prediction models evaluate an individual's likelihood of reoffending by analyzing information on their criminal history, prison behavior, and personal background. Correctional facilities also use AI-driven systems to track the behavior of their inmates, identify violent or inappropriate trends, and suggest treatment plans. AI can recommend individualized rehabilitation programs, including job or educational training, based on analysis of inmate data, to lower the likelihood of reoffending after release. Current Applications of AI in Criminal Justice Artificial Intelligence (AI) has increasingly become an essential tool in various sectors around the world, including healthcare, finance, education, and law enforcement. In India, the criminal justice system has begun embracing AI technologies to improve the efficiency of law enforcement, judicial processes, and corrections. These advancements promise to transform how the country combats crime, manages resources, and ensures justice for its citizens. Law enforcement agencies in India are increasingly relying on AI technologies to enhance crime prevention, investigation, and resource management. AI tools are being deployed to analyze data, improve surveillance, and predict crime patterns, leading to more efficient and targeted policing efforts. For example, cities like Delhi, Mumbai, and Hyderabad have implemented AI-driven crime mapping systems that analyze past criminal incidents to forecast where crimes are most likely to occur. Here’s how these systems typically function and contribute to crime prevention and management:- Data Collection - The AI systems collect information from a variety of sources, such as social media, police reports, CCTV footage, GPS data, historical crime statistics, and public complaints. Real-time data from IoT devices, emergency call logs, and surveillance cameras is also included into certain systems. This enables real-time updates to the system, enabling it to modify forecasts in response to current events. Data Analysis and Pattern Recognition - Sophisticated algorithms for machine learning examine past data to find trends in criminal activity. For example, the system may recognize that certain types of crimes, like theft or vandalism, are more likely to occur in specific regions during various times of day or seasons. Some systems go one step farther and classify the probability of various crime types in each area, allowing police departments to plan ahead for particular problems in specific areas. Predictive Policing - Police are able to prevent possible criminal behavior by proactively assigning officers to hotspots after they have been identified. This maximizes resource allocation by allowing officers to be stationed where they are most likely to be needed. Additionally, AI-driven algorithms can recommend the best patrol schedules, guaranteeing that police are in high-risk areas at peak hours. This increases visibility, which can discourage criminal activity on its own. Examples Hyderabad : Hyderabad police have implemented the use of AI and data analytics for crime prediction and resource allocation. Their system combines facial recognition with crime mapping to both predict potential hotspots and identify suspects more efficiently. Delhi and Mumbai : Both cities use AI-powered surveillance systems and predictive policing tools. Mumbai, in particular, has incorporated this technology into its larger “Safe City” project, using predictive analysis alongside large-scale CCTV networks. Law enforcement officials are increasingly concerned about cybercrime as a result of India's economy and society being more digitally connected. By tracking online activity, spotting suspicious activity, and evaluating data from social media, financial transactions, and other digital platforms, artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are becoming increasingly important in the fight against cybercrime. To improve the nation's capacity to address new threats in cyberspace, the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) , a Ministry of Home Affairs project, employs AI to collect and evaluate data on cybercrime. Algorithms powered by AI are useful for spotting fraudulent transactions, tracking down online criminals, and identifying phony accounts. AI-driven legal research tools help lawyers and judges analyze case law, statutes, and legal precedents more efficiently. In India, various AI tools and technologies are being made publicly available by government agencies and local authorities to improve public safety, crime prevention, and general law enforcement transparency. These tools often aim to empower citizens with real-time information and enable a more collaborative approach between the public and the police. Here are some notable examples: Citizen Facing AI Apps and Portals The Delhi Police have launched an app that provides features like e-FIR filing, traffic updates, and real-time crime alerts. This app uses AI-driven analytics to give citizens access to the latest crime data in their locality, helping them stay informed and take precautions. Hyderabad’s police department has the Hawk Eye  app, which enables citizens to report crimes such as harassment or threats, especially in the context of women’s safety. The app uses AI-based analytics to categorize complaints, track incident patterns, and alert the nearest law enforcement units. Hyderabad’s SHE Teams , which focus on women’s safety. Crime Mapping Some cities have started releasing publicly available crime mapping tools on official websites, allowing residents to view crime trends, recent incidents, and other safety information. In collaboration with local authorities, some apps provide predictive crime maps that are accessible to the public. For instance, these maps may be available through municipal apps or dedicated city police websites, offering users insights into potential crime hotspots Government Initiatives for Public Safety While not a direct provider of AI tools for the public, the NCRB collects and publishes detailed crime data and statistics, which support AI-driven analysis by other government agencies. Under the Nirbhaya Fund , several cities are implementing Safe City projects that incorporate AI-driven tools for surveillance, public awareness, and emergency response. Many Safe City initiatives include public portals where citizens can access safety updates, report issues, and stay informed about crime trends in their area. Use of AI by Indian Railways (SCR-South Central Railways) The South Central Railway (SCR) and other railway zones have begun leveraging AI for both safety and passenger convenience. AI-powered video analytics are now being used at SCR stations to identify suspicious behavior and alert railway protection officers in real-time. The Railways have also introduced mobile apps, such as the Rail Madad  app, where passengers can file complaints, seek assistance, or report incidents. Though not purely AI-driven, these apps are integrated with railway safety and operations systems, helping passengers quickly access the help they need. AI is gradually transforming India’s criminal justice system, offering solutions to longstanding issues such as case backlogs, inefficiencies, and limited access to justice. Its applications in law enforcement, judicial processes, corrections, and legal aid have the potential to improve crime prevention, streamline court proceedings, and enhance rehabilitation efforts. However, these advancements must be accompanied by strong ethical guidelines and regulatory frameworks to ensure that AI is used responsibly and equitably in the criminal justice system. Benefits of AI in Criminal Justice The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into India’s criminal justice system offers transformative potential in addressing long-standing issues such as case backlogs, resource constraints, and inefficiencies in policing, judicial processes, and corrections. India’s justice system, marked by the slow pace of case resolutions, overcrowded prisons, and overburdened law enforcement agencies, can significantly benefit from the automation, predictive analysis, and data processing capabilities that AI technologies provide. Due to AI's ability to evaluate large amounts of data rapidly and reliably, law enforcement agencies may now conduct investigations much more quickly. Face recognition software powered by AI makes it easier to identify suspects, find and apprehend offenders, and resolve missing person situations. For example, the Delhi Police has improved its reaction times by using facial recognition technology to settle multiple crimes involving sizable public gatherings or protests. With India’s rapid digital transformation, the country faces a growing threat from cybercrime. AI-driven systems are being used to monitor online activities and detect suspicious patterns of behavior, helping authorities prevent and investigate cybercrimes more effectively.For example, the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) leverages AI to collect and analyze data on cyber threats, enabling law enforcement agencies to respond more rapidly to emerging cybercrime trends. AI technologies can assist judges and legal professionals in managing their workload more efficiently by automating routine tasks such as case scheduling, document review, and legal research.For example, the E-Courts Mission Mode Project is working towards digitizing court records and automating administrative processes. By minimizing manual intervention in routine judicial tasks, AI can help accelerate case resolutions, reducing the backlog of cases that have accumulated over years. For example, platforms like LegalKart use AI to provide real-time legal advice, connect users with qualified lawyers, and help them navigate through their legal issues. Such services empower individuals with limited legal literacy to better understand their rights and take necessary actions without needing to consult expensive lawyers. AI offers substantial benefits to India’s criminal justice system, addressing many of the inefficiencies and challenges that have plagued law enforcement, the judiciary, and corrections. From improving crime prevention and investigative processes to streamlining judicial workflows and promoting fairer outcomes, AI is poised to play a pivotal role in transforming the system Challenges and Limitations of AI in Criminal Justice While Artificial Intelligence (AI) offers transformative potential in India’s criminal justice system, addressing issues like inefficiency, backlogs, and resource limitations, it also presents significant challenges and limitations. The introduction of AI into law enforcement, judicial processes, and corrections requires a careful balance between leveraging its benefits and managing potential risks. Technological Challenges One of the primary challenges of implementing AI in criminal justice in India lies in the technological barriers that limit the effectiveness of AI systems. India’s technological infrastructure poses a significant challenge to the widespread deployment of AI in the criminal justice system. The uneven distribution of technology across different regions means that AI adoption may be limited to urban areas, while rural and semi-urban areas lag behind. The accuracy and reliability of AI algorithms in criminal justice applications are also major concerns. AI systems, particularly in fields like facial recognition, predictive policing, and decision-making support, are not infallible. Moreover, AI systems, by nature, rely on probabilistic reasoning, which means that predictions are never 100% accurate. Legal and Regulatory Challenge India currently lacks a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework governing the use of AI in criminal justice. While some countries have started to establish rules around AI’s deployment in law enforcement and the judiciary. One of the central concerns with AI is its opacity. AI algorithms, particularly deep learning models, often operate as “black boxes,” meaning their decision-making processes are not transparent even to their developers. The use of AI in criminal justice requires access to large datasets, including sensitive personal information. In the absence of strong data protection laws, there is a risk that this data could be misused, leading to violations of privacy. Ethical Challenges Ethical concerns are at the forefront of discussions surrounding the use of AI in criminal justice. AI systems, though seemingly neutral, are susceptible to biases that can lead to unfair and discriminatory outcomes. For instance, if historical crime data shows a higher number of arrests in low-income neighborhoods, AI-powered predictive policing algorithms may target these areas more aggressively, even if the underlying causes of crime are socio-economic in nature. AI’s role in criminal justice decision-making raises ethical questions about human agency and autonomy. When AI systems make recommendations about sentencing, parole, or bail, there is a risk that judges and legal professionals may overly rely on AI’s output without critically evaluating it. It is crucial to ensure that AI remains a tool to assist human decision-making, rather than replacing it. Social and Cultural Challenges The success of AI in the criminal justice system depends on public trust and acceptance. Many people are skeptical about the use of AI in criminal justice, particularly given the potential for errors and biases. High-profile cases of AI failures, such as wrongful arrests due to flawed facial recognition systems, have raised concerns about the reliability of AI technologies. Cultural attitudes towards technology and innovation vary across different regions and communities in India. In some areas, particularly rural and underdeveloped regions, there may be resistance to the adoption of AI technologies due to a lack of understanding or familiarity with these tools. These stakeholders must be equipped with the knowledge and skills to use AI tools effectively while maintaining the integrity of the justice system. While AI offers significant potential to improve India’s criminal justice system by enhancing efficiency, reducing case backlogs, and improving decision-making, it also presents several challenges and limitations. Technological barriers such as incomplete data and inadequate infrastructure, legal concerns related to accountability and data privacy, and ethical issues around bias and fairness must be addressed to ensure the responsible use of AI in the justice system. Only by addressing these challenges can India fully realize the benefits of AI in promoting a more efficient, equitable, and just criminal justice system. Case Studies The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into India's criminal justice system is in its nascent stages, but several cases and projects have demonstrated the potential benefits and challenges of using AI technologies in law enforcement, judicial processes, and corrections. The Delhi Police, one of the largest law enforcement agencies in India, has been at the forefront of utilizing AI for predictive policing. In 2018, the police force partnered with the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) to develop a predictive policing system that uses AI and satellite data to identify potential crime hotspots in the city. This allowed the Delhi Police to better allocate their resources, focusing on areas that were most likely to experience criminal activity. One major concern raised was the potential for biased data. Predictive policing systems, when trained on historical data, can reinforce biases against marginalized communities that may have been over-policed in the past. In 2020, the Telangana Police deployed an AI-powered facial recognition system (FRS) to identify suspects, missing persons, and criminals during large public gatherings, such as festivals, protests, and political rallies. The facial recognition system was used to scan and identify individuals in real time from CCTV footage, drone surveillance, and police body cameras. It allowed law enforcement agencies to quickly identify potential threats or locate missing individuals in crowded areas. The Telangana Police reported several successes with the FRS, including the identification and apprehension of criminals who had previously evaded capture. Despite its successes, the facial recognition system has raised concerns over privacy violations and the potential for misuse. Critics argue that the widespread use of such technology could lead to mass surveillance and erosion of individual privacy rights, particularly in the absence of strong data protection laws In 2019, the Supreme Court of India adopted an AI-based tool named "SUPHAC" (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court) to assist judges and lawyers with legal research. This tool, developed in collaboration with the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) and other academic institutions, uses AI to analyze case laws, judgments, and legal precedents. SUPHAC leverages natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning algorithms to search vast databases of legal documents and provide relevant case laws and precedents. The use of AI tools like SUPHAC is seen as a potential solution to the massive backlog of cases pending in Indian courts, which number in the millions. While SUPHAC has been praised for its ability to streamline legal research, it is not without limitations. The AI system relies heavily on the quality and completeness of the legal data it processes. In 2021, the Maharashtra government initiated a pilot project to use AI in prison management and recidivism prediction. The project aims to improve inmate management, predict the likelihood of inmates reoffending after their release, and design individualized rehabilitation programs. AI-based systems analyze data related to inmates' behavior, participation in rehabilitation programs, and interactions with prison staff. This approach has the potential to reduce recidivism rates by focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration rather than purely punitive measures. The use of AI in prison management raises ethical concerns related to the fairness and transparency of AI-driven decisions. The risk of bias in recidivism prediction algorithms is a significant issue, as inmates from marginalized communities may be unfairly labeled as high-risk based on flawed data. The Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS) is a nationwide project initiated by the Ministry of Home Affairs in India to digitize and integrate data related to crime and criminals across the country. CCTNS allows police stations to upload First Information Reports (FIRs), criminal records, and investigation data to a unified database. AI algorithms analyze this data to detect trends, identify repeat offenders, and track criminal activities across different states and regions. One of the major challenges facing CCTNS is the lack of uniformity in data collection practices across different police stations and states. Some regions have not fully digitized their records, and data quality remains a concern Future of AI in Criminal Justice Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize India's criminal justice system by improving efficiency, reducing case backlogs, enhancing investigative processes, and promoting more informed decision-making. AI-driven facial recognition technology (FRT) is already being used by law enforcement agencies in India, but its future could see more widespread adoption with enhanced accuracy and speed. In the future, AI-based facial recognition could be integrated with other biometric systems such as gait recognition, voice identification, and fingerprint scanning to create more robust identification mechanisms. AI tools for legal research, such as SUPHAC, which is already being used in the Supreme Court of India, will become more widespread across lower courts in the future. These systems use natural language processing (NLP) to analyze large volumes of legal texts, including judgments, statutes, and case law, enabling judges and lawyers to quickly access relevant information. Further, AI-powered chatbots or virtual assistants could assist litigants and lawyers with procedural queries, such as providing updates on case status, filing deadlines, and documentation requirements. With the rise of cybercrime and digital evidence, AI will be critical in analyzing vast amounts of digital data from computers, mobile devices, and online platforms. AI tools will help identify patterns in digital evidence, such as tracing financial transactions related to money laundering, hacking activities, or illegal drug trade. As these AI technologies advance, the integration of AI into criminal investigations will reduce the time required to solve complex cases, enabling law enforcement agencies to resolve cases faster and with greater accuracy. AI’s potential impact extends to prison management and the rehabilitation of offenders. By leveraging AI-driven systems, India could make its prisons more efficient and effective, focusing on reducing recidivism rates and improving inmate rehabilitation. Conclusion The integration of AI into the criminal justice system holds great transformative power for India. There are many systemic issues that have long plagued India's justice system, from improving the efficiency of enforcement agencies to streamlining judicial processes and enhancing prison management. However, caution must be exercised in adopting AI technologies since it brings up vital ethical, legal, and societal concerns that should be considered for sure safe use. The final benefit of AI as it applies to criminal justice is that it may significantly improve the ability of law enforcement agencies. Predictive policing, facial recognition, and AI-driven data analytics have already started to demonstrate considerable promise in enabling law enforcement agencies to prevent crimes, identify offenders, and close cases much more quickly. AI can handle voluminous real-time data, which makes it possible to make informed decisions, offer better allocation of resources, and deal with complex cases such as cybercrime, organized crime, and terrorism. However, there is a necessary issue to be addressed in terms of the latent bias the algorithms deployed carry since AI has reached everywhere in law enforcement. Despite these advantages, the challenges associated with AI in criminal justice cannot be overlooked. Issues such as data privacy, algorithmic transparency, and the risk of AI-driven decisions exacerbating existing inequalities require immediate attention. India must develop a comprehensive regulatory framework that governs the use of AI in criminal justice, ensuring that AI applications respect individual rights, maintain accountability, and uphold the principles of fairness and justice. The forthcoming Personal Data Protection Bill will play a crucial role in shaping these regulations, but it must be accompanied by sector-specific guidelines that address the unique challenges of AI in criminal justice. In conclusion, while AI holds great promise for the future of India's criminal justice system, it is essential to strike a balance between technological innovation and ethical responsibility. By addressing the limitations and risks associated with AI, India can harness the power of this technology to create a more efficient, equitable, and transparent justice system that serves the needs of all citizens. If implemented responsibly, AI can transform the criminal justice landscape, making it more accessible, efficient, and just.

Abstract : The Indian legal framework is undergoing a significant transformation with the introduction of three new legislative acts that is the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (“ BNS ”), the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (“ BNSS ”), and the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (“ BSA ”). These acts aim to modernize, streamline, and enhance the efficacy of India’s criminal justice system. This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of these three acts, along with important key features of new criminal act from their predecessors.   Introduction : India has recently undertaken a major reform of its criminal justice system, replacing outdated colonial-era laws with three new statutes: the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). These new laws are designed to modernize legal procedures, address current societal issues, and enhance the protection of citizens. On July 1, 2024, India marked a new chapter in its criminal justice history by replacing three key laws that is  the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.     Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)   The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) replaces the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and introduces several new provisions, focusing on modernization and improving the efficiency of legal processes. Below is a chapter-wise breakdown of the significant changes introduced by the BNS:   Chapter 1: General Provisions The BNS updates the language to be more contemporary and accessible, making it easier for the common person to understand legal terminologies. Legal provisions have been consolidated and clarified to eliminate ambiguities, while procedural delays are addressed through streamlined processes. This chapter also sets the stage for victim-centered reforms, enhancing their rights throughout legal proceedings. The use of digital evidence, online trials, and the inclusion of technology in legal processes is a key feature. This is aligned with international conventions and other modern laws, ensuring that the Indian legal system is up-to-date.   Chapter 2: Offenses and Punishments The BNS reduces the total number of sections from 511 (in the IPC) to 358. Similar offenses are grouped together, providing a more structured and logical legal framework. New provisions have been introduced to deal with cybercrimes, and offenses related to the protection of women and children have been updated. Eight new sections have been added, while 22 outdated sections have been removed. The penalties for various crimes have been increased to match contemporary standards. This includes higher fines and stricter punishments for severe crimes such as rape and offenses against women and children.   Chapter 3: Special Provisions A renewed focus on victims' rights is evident, with provisions ensuring faster trials, better legal protection, and rehabilitation. The BNS has introduced new offenses to address crimes that have emerged in modern times, such as cybercrime and sexual offenses under false promises of marriage.      Comparing the BNS with the IPC: What’s Changed?   1.     Sedition (Section 124A of IPC vs. Section 150 of BNS) ·      Under the IPC, Section 124A dealt with sedition, criminalizing acts that incited disaffection against the government. This provision was widely criticized for suppressing dissent and limiting freedom of speech. ·      In the BNS, Section 150 replaces the old sedition law with a broader offense that targets actions threatening the integrity and sovereignty of India. This new section covers a wider range of activities that could undermine national security, addressing concerns that the IPC’s sedition law was too restrictive.   2.     Snatching (New Offense) ·      Section 304(1) of the BNS now classifies snatching as a distinct offense, separate from theft, and imposes a penalty of up to three years in prison. The IPC did not specifically define snatching, treating it under broader theft provisions. ·      This change highlights the seriousness of snatching, recognizing the unique aspects of the crime, such as the use of force or intimidation, which were not clearly addressed in the IPC. 3. Sexual Activity under False Promise of Marriage (New Provision) Section   69 of the BNS criminalizes engaging in sexual activity under false promises of marriage, imposing penalties of up to 10 years in prison. The IPC did not have a specific provision for such offenses, although courts occasionally addressed these under broader cheating or rape laws. This clause protects individuals, particularly women, from exploitation, though some argue it may inadvertently penalize consensual relationships where the promise of marriage evolves.   4. Introduction of Community Service (New Punishment) Section 4 of the BNS introduces community service as a new form of punishment for minor offenses like petty theft, public misbehaviour due to intoxication, or defamation. This represents a move towards restorative justice, focusing on rehabilitation over retribution. The IPC relied solely on traditional punitive measures such as imprisonment or fines, without including community service as a potential punishment.   5. Gender-Neutral Protection Against Sexual Assaults Section 2(10) of the BNS expands the definition of gender to include all individuals, including transgender persons, ensuring broader legal protections. The IPC, with its binary framework, primarily addressed sexual crimes in terms of male perpetrators and female victims, leaving a gap in protection for transgender individuals. The BNS’s gender-neutral approach reflects modern understandings of identity and provides inclusive protection.   6. Mob Lynching as a Separate Offense (New) Section 103(2) of the BNS defines mob lynching as a distinct crime, with severe penalties including death or life imprisonment. This section specifically addresses violence motivated by biases such as race, caste, or religion. The IPC treated all murders under general provisions (Section 302) and did not differentiate between individual and collective bias-driven violence. The BNS addresses this gap, recognizing mob lynching as a distinct and serious offense.   7. Hit-and-Run Incidents (New Provision) Section 106(2) of the BNS criminalizes hit-and-run incidents, imposing up to ten years of imprisonment for drivers who cause fatal accidents and flee the scene. The provision reflects the seriousness of both reckless driving and evading responsibility. In contrast, the IPC lacked specific provisions for hit-and-run cases, addressing such incidents under broader negligence laws like Section 304A (causing death by negligence) and Section 279 (rash driving), without directly addressing the act of fleeing the scene.   8. Punishment for Child Rape (Continuing Framework) Both the IPC and BNS impose the death penalty for the rape of a child. The IPC’s Sections 375 and 376 , amended by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, introduced the death penalty for extreme cases of rape. Section 64 of the BNS continues this approach, aligning with current legal and societal expectations for strict penalties in child rape cases.   Reflection on the Old Law: The Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860 was a colonial-era law that remained largely unchanged for over a century, despite significant societal, technological, and legal developments. While it laid the foundation for modern Indian criminal law, its provisions became outdated in addressing contemporary issues such as cybercrime, gender identity, and collective violence (e.g., mob lynching). Judicial reforms, societal changes, and the need for more victim-centric, inclusive, and technologically aligned laws were key reasons for replacing the IPC with the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita .         Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)   The  Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)  replaces the  Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , marking a significant modernization of India's criminal justice framework. The BNSS expands the scope of legal procedures, incorporating new definitions, updates, and streamlined processes for greater transparency and efficiency. With 533 sections, the BNSS revises 160 existing sections, introduces 9 new ones, and repeals 9 others, aligning the law with contemporary legal needs. Below is a breakdown of the key changes introduced by the BNSS: Chapter 1: General Provisions Updated Definitions : The BNSS refines key legal terms to ensure they are in line with modern technology and practices. Audio-Video Electronic Means [Section 2(1)(a)] : Recognizes digital communication methods like video conferencing and digital recording in legal proceedings, allowing for remote hearings. Bail [Section 2(1)(b)] : Clarifies bail provisions to standardize the process, improving transparency. Electronic Communication [Section 2(1)(i)] : BNSS includes provisions for emails and texts as valid evidence, bridging a gap in the CrPC. Victim [Section 2(1)(y)] : Expands the definition of a victim to include anyone affected by a crime, even if charges have not yet been filed, accelerating access to justice and compensation.   Chapter 2: Judicial Hierarchy and Structure Simplified Judicial Structure : The BNSS overhauls the old judicial hierarchy, consolidating roles for improved efficiency. Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class : Absorbs the powers of the abolished  Judicial Magistrate of the Third Class , handling minor offenses with expanded authority. Sessions Judges : Take over the duties of the abolished  Assistant Sessions Judges , consolidating responsibilities for serious offenses. What Happened to JMTC Judges and Cases? : Judges are either transitioned into new roles or administrative positions, while cases are reassigned to ensure smoother case flow.   ·      Comparison of Old and New Judicial Hierarchies [SM2]     CrPC (1973)   BNSS 2023   Judicial Magistrate of the Third Class (JMTC) Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class         Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class (with expanded powers) Judicial Magistrate of the First Class Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (including Chief and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates) Metropolitan Magistrates       Merged with Judicial Magistrates of the First Class Assistant Sessions Judges       Abolished; roles merged with Sessions Judges Sessions Judges          Sessions Judges (retained with full authority over serious offenses) Executive Magistrates Executive Magistrates (role unchanged)   Chapter 3: Directorate of Prosecution Centralized Prosecution System [Section 20] : BNSS introduces a Directorate of Prosecution, led by a  Director of Prosecution , to oversee high-stakes cases and ensure a uniform approach. District Directorate : Ensures local prosecution management, improving accountability. Assistant Director of Prosecution : Manages minor cases, ensuring they are processed efficiently.   Chapter 4: Sentencing Reforms Increased Fine Limits [Section 23] : Fine limits for magistrates are significantly increased, reflecting current economic realities. Magistrates of the First Class can now impose fines up to ₹50,000, while Second Class Magistrates can impose fines up to ₹10,000. Introduction of Community Service [Section 23] : BNSS introduces community service as an alternative punishment, promoting rehabilitation over incarceration for minor offenses.   Chapter 5: Protection for Vulnerable Groups Elderly and Infirm Protections [Sections 35(7) & 179(1)] : BNSS prevents the arrest of elderly or infirm individuals for minor offenses without special authorization, and allows elderly witnesses to give testimony from home, safeguarding their well-being.   Chapter 6: Modernizing Summons and Evidence Collection Electronic Summons [Sections 63, 64, 70] : Summons can now be issued via email and other digital platforms, speeding up legal notifications and improving accuracy. Gender-Neutral Summons [Section 66] : Removes the gender bias present in the CrPC, allowing any adult, regardless of gender, to receive summons.   Chapter 7: Reforms in Digital Evidence Handling Admissibility of Electronic Evidence [Section 94] : Expands the scope of admissible digital communications and the devices that store such data, ensuring comprehensive evidence collection in the digital age. Videography of Search and Seizure [Section 105] : Mandates the use of videography during searches, creating a verifiable record and reducing evidence tampering.   Chapter 8: Police Reforms Handling of Non-Compliant Individuals [Section 172] : Establishes a framework for detaining individuals who resist lawful directives, ensuring judicial oversight and preventing unnecessary detention. Zero FIR and e-FIR [Section 173] : Introduces Zero FIR and electronic FIRs, allowing complaints to be filed regardless of jurisdiction and through digital means.   Comparing the BNSS with the CrPC: What’s Changed?   1.     Introduction of Zero FIR and e-FIR (Section 173) : CrPC : FIRs had to be filed in the police station under whose jurisdiction the crime occurred, leading to delays in urgent cases. BNSS : The concept of  Zero FIR  allows an FIR to be filed in any police station, regardless of the crime’s location. Additionally,  e-FIR  enables individuals to file FIRs online, improving accessibility and speeding up the complaint process. 2.     Use of Technology in Summons (Sections 63, 64, 70) : CrPC : Summons were issued in physical form and served manually, which often caused delays. BNSS : Allows summons to be issued electronically via email or other digital platforms, speeding up legal processes and increasing transparency. 3.     Expanded Admissibility of Digital Evidence (Section 94) : CrPC : Lacked specific provisions on handling digital or electronic evidence, relying on general evidence rules. BNSS : Explicitly includes provisions for the admissibility of digital evidence like emails, text messages, and social media interactions, recognizing the evolving nature of communication. 4.     Videography of Search and Seizure (Section 105) : CrPC : Search and seizure processes were documented manually, with no mandatory videography, which could lead to disputes about evidence tampering. BNSS : Mandates the use of videography during search and seizure operations to ensure transparency and create a verifiable record of the process. 5.     Introduction of Community Service (Section 23) : ·      CrPC : Relied on imprisonment and fines as the main forms of punishment. BNSS : Introduces  community service  as an alternative punishment for minor offenses, focusing on rehabilitation rather than punitive measures. 6.     Gender-Neutral Summons (Section 66) : CrPC : Only allowed a "male member of the family" to receive a summons. BNSS : Modernizes this by removing gender bias, allowing any adult member of the family to receive a summons, promoting gender equality. 7.     Clarified Bail Provisions (Section 2(1)(b)) : CrPC : While bail was defined, the process was sometimes inconsistent across cases. BNSS : Clarifies and standardizes the conditions for bail, improving transparency in bail proceedings. 8.     Victim-Centric Reforms (Section 2(1)(y)) : CrPC : Defined "victim" narrowly, often limiting rights to individuals only after formal charges were filed. BNSS : Broadens the definition of "victim," allowing for earlier involvement in the legal process and quicker access to compensation. 9.       Simplified Judicial Hierarchy : CrPC : Had multiple layers in the judiciary (e.g., Judicial Magistrate of the Third Class), which led to delays and overlapping duties. BNSS : Consolidates the judicial hierarchy, eliminating certain positions like the  Judicial Magistrate of the Third Class  and streamlining case management for faster justice. 10.    Improved Protections for the Elderly and Infirm (Sections 35(7) & 179(1)) : CrPC : Did not offer specific protections for elderly or infirm individuals during arrests or court proceedings. BNSS : Introduces provisions preventing the arrest of elderly individuals for minor offenses without authorization and allows elderly witnesses to give testimony from their homes.   Reflection on the Old Law: ·       The  Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1973  was a post-colonial law that established the procedural framework for criminal justice in India. While it provided a comprehensive legal structure, it became increasingly outdated over the years, especially in addressing advancements in technology, evolving social norms, and the complexity of modern-day crimes. Its reliance on manual processes and physical documentation slowed down legal proceedings and created inefficiencies in case management. ·       As society advanced, the  CrPC  struggled to keep up with issues like the handling of digital evidence, the need for quicker and more transparent processes (e.g., Zero FIR, e-FIR), and the growing demand for a victim-centric approach in the legal system. The absence of technological integration and the need for streamlined judicial hierarchies highlighted the gap between the old law and modern legal challenges. ·       Judicial reforms, the digitization of evidence and procedures, and the need for a more victim-focused, efficient, and technologically advanced criminal justice system were the driving factors behind replacing the CrPC with the  Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The BNSS addresses these gaps, ensuring that the legal framework aligns with current societal and technological developments.       Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)   The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 replaces the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reflecting significant changes aimed at modernizing the legal framework for handling evidence in India. With 170 sections (up from 167), this Act includes 1 new section, revisions to 23 sections, and the repeal of 5 sections. One of the most critical advancements introduced by the BSA is the formal recognition of digital and electronic evidence, which marks a notable shift in how modern court procedures are conducted.   Below is a breakdown of key features introduced by the BSA:   Chapter 1: Modernization of Evidence Handling Digital and Electronic Evidence : The BSA, 2023 comprehensively expands the definition of "documents" to include digital records such as emails, SMS, server logs, websites, and data from computers and smartphones. This contrasts with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which lacked clarity on the admissibility of such electronic evidence. Under  Section 65B , digital evidence is now considered primary evidence, simplifying its use in court, compared to the stringent conditions that applied to electronic records as secondary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. Digitization of Legal Records: The BSA mandates the digitization of legal records, including FIRs, charge sheets, case diaries, and judgments, ensuring easier access and preservation. This move strengthens record management and provides greater transparency.   Chapter 2: Confessions and Constitutional Safeguards Confessions in Police Custody : The BSA introduces flexibility in admitting confessions made in police custody, provided they meet certain reliability standards. This provision could, however, raise concerns about conflicts with  Article 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination) and  Article 21  (right to a fair trial) of the Constitution. The Act must strike a balance between enhancing the admissibility of confessions while safeguarding against coerced statements, following the principles established in landmark cases like  D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) .   Chapter 3: Alignment with Technological Laws Accordance with the IT Act, 2000 : Section 63  of the BSA is expanded to include terms like "semiconductor memory" and "communication devices," ensuring consistency with the Information Technology Act, 2000, and modernizing the framework for digital evidence across various laws.   Chapter 4: Reforms in Joint Trials Joint Trial (Section 30) : The BSA clarifies that confessions made by one accused can still be used in joint trials, even if one accused is absent or does not respond to arrest orders, ensuring that trials proceed efficiently without undue delays.   Chapter 5: Judicial Precedents on Electronic Evidence Supreme Court Judgments : The Supreme Court's ruling in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)  emphasized the necessity for stringent conditions to ensure the reliability of electronic evidence. This landmark decision directly influenced the  BSA’s  provisions on digital records. The Act builds on judicial pronouncements that emphasize protecting the accused from coercion and ensuring the authenticity of digital evidence through a reliable chain of custody.   Chapter 6: Addressing Concerns and Safeguards Chain of Custody for Digital Evidence : The BSA introduces guidelines to protect the integrity of digital evidence, emphasizing the importance of a well-documented chain of custody to prevent tampering or manipulation. This addresses long-standing concerns raised by judicial bodies and investigative agencies.   Chapter 7: Key Changes in Handling of Digital Evidence Introduction of Forensic Safeguards : The BSA implements recommendations from the Karnataka High Court’s 2021 guidelines, which outline the need for forensic experts during digital searches and the use of Faraday bags to protect seized electronic devices from tampering. This ensures that electronic evidence is handled with the necessary precautions, particularly in sensitive cases involving cybercrime.   Chapter 8: Actions for Effective Implementation Enforcement Recommendations : The Standing Committee on Home Affairs (2023) highlighted the need for stronger protections around the authenticity and integrity of digital records. Recommendations include the proper training of enforcement agencies in handling digital evidence and ensuring encryption methods are used to protect sensitive data. Following the Law Commission’s 2003 recommendations, the BSA also suggests provisions to hold police officers accountable for any harm caused to individuals in custody, placing the burden of proof on the authorities in cases of injury.     Comparing the BSA with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: What’s Changed?   1. Admissibility of Digital Evidence: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Digital evidence was not explicitly defined or widely admissible. While  Section 65B allowed for electronic records, the conditions for admissibility were stringent, requiring certification and other documentation, making the process complex. BSA, 2023 : Digital evidence (e.g., emails, SMS, server logs, websites) is now considered primary evidence, making it much easier to admit electronic records in court. The BSA reduces the stringent conditions required for electronic records, aligning it with modern needs.   2. Expansion of the Definition of Documents: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : The definition of documents was limited to physical records and did not account for the digital age. BSA, 2023 : The definition of documents is expanded to include electronic records, such as data stored on smartphones, computers, and cloud services. This change reflects the importance of digital communication and records in modern legal proceedings.   3. Recognition of Electronic Communication Devices: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : The act did not address the use of modern electronic communication devices (e.g., smartphones, laptops) for collecting and presenting evidence. BSA, 2023 : The new law explicitly recognizes digital communication devices and integrates terms like semiconductor memory and communication devices (as seen in Section 63), ensuring that evidence from such devices is treated uniformly under the law.   4. Digitization of Legal Records: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Legal records, including FIRs, charge sheets, and court records, were primarily managed in physical form, leading to issues in accessibility, storage, and preservation. BSA, 2023 : Mandates the digitization of legal records, ensuring easier access, better storage, and reduced chances of tampering or loss of records. It streamlines case management, making legal procedures more efficient.   5. Confessions in Police Custody: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Confessions made in police custody were largely inadmissible, as the focus was on preventing coerced confessions and protecting the rights of the accused. BSA, 2023 : Introduces some flexibility, allowing certain confessions made in police custody to be admissible under certain safeguards. However, this provision raises concerns about the protection against self-incrimination under  Article 20(3)  of the Constitution.   6. Chain of Custody for Digital Evidence: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : The act did not provide clear guidelines for handling the chain of custody for electronic records, which led to questions of authenticity and potential tampering. BSA, 2023 : Introduces detailed guidelines to ensure the integrity and preservation of digital evidence. It mandates a clear chain of custody to prevent manipulation and tampering, which is crucial in maintaining the reliability of electronic evidence.   7. Joint Trial Procedures: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Joint trial provisions allowed the confession of one accused to be used against others, but it was ambiguous when one of the accused was absent or unavailable. BSA, 2023 : Clarifies that a joint trial remains valid even if one accused is absent or fails to respond to an arrest order, ensuring continuity of the legal process.   8. Use of Forensic Tools and Technology: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Forensic technology, such as the use of videography during searches or the inclusion of digital forensic examiners, was not part of the original law. BSA, 2023 : Emphasizes the use of modern forensic tools, including videography of search and seizure operations, to enhance transparency and credibility during investigations.   9. Alignment with the IT Act, 2000: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Did not account for the rapid advancements in information technology, as it was crafted before the digital revolution. BSA, 2023 : Aligns with the IT Act, 2000, ensuring consistent legal treatment of electronic records and devices across different legal frameworks.   10. Increased Focus on Cyber-Related Offenses: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Was not equipped to handle the complexities of cybercrime or offenses involving digital platforms. BSA, 2023 : Introduces provisions for effectively handling cyber-related offenses, ensuring the courts can efficiently address crimes involving digital platforms and electronic communication.     Reflection on the Old Law:   The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 served as the foundational framework for evidentiary rules in Indian courts for over a century. While it was revolutionary for its time, it gradually became outdated due to the rapid advancements in technology and the evolving nature of crimes. Its provisions were designed for a pre-digital era, leading to significant challenges in addressing modern issues such as electronic communication, digital evidence, and cybercrime. Lack of Digital Evidence Provisions : The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 did not anticipate the use of digital records or electronic communication, which have now become essential components of legal proceedings. Section 65B, which dealt with electronic records, imposed stringent conditions for admissibility, making the process of presenting digital evidence complex and time-consuming. Inflexibility in Handling Modern Communication Devices : The old law did not account for modern electronic devices such as smartphones, laptops, and other communication tools. This gap hindered the collection and presentation of key digital evidence, leaving courts to rely on outdated interpretations of evidence laws. Physical Documentation and Procedural Delays : The reliance on physical documentation created inefficiencies in legal processes. The absence of a framework for the digitization of legal records, such as FIRs and charge sheets, led to issues with storage, preservation, and accessibility, often delaying justice. Limited Recognition of Forensic Tools and Technology : Forensic tools such as videography of searches and digital forensic examiners were not addressed under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, making investigations less transparent and prone to errors. Challenges in Cybercrime : The old law lacked provisions for handling cyber-related offenses, which have become increasingly prevalent with the advent of the internet and digital platforms. The absence of a framework to address crimes involving electronic communication or digital platforms left a significant gap in the criminal justice system.   The  Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023  addresses these shortcomings by modernizing evidence laws to include digital records, enhancing the admissibility of electronic evidence, and incorporating forensic tools and cybercrime-related provisions. These changes reflect the need to bring India's evidentiary laws in line with contemporary legal and technological advancements.     Reference   Statute   1.     Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act, 2023 (India) - replacing the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2.     Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 (India) - replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3.     Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Act, 2023 (India) - replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

If concurrence is monochrome, dissent is technicolor. It is the heart and soul of democracy. When dissent is prohibited and the dissenter is penalised, totalitarianism, not genuine democracy, prevails in the country. India has seen dissent in its public sphere since time immemorial, and it has been overrun by the majority, only to rear its head each time, never to be silenced. Whether it was the Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act passed by the British to prevent talks of freedom in India, and the subsequent introduction of the festival of Ganesh Chaturthi by Tilak; or the salt tax imposed by the British and the Dandi March by Gandhi to counter it; Indian history is replete with instances of public bludgeonings by chance (or not), and heads being bloody but unbowed. One can kill a man, not an idea, and in that spirit, I through this paper try to trace the history of dissent in India’s public, primarily judicial sphere. Much like cryonic storage believers who have frozen themselves to a date where in the future, medicine has caught up to restore their bodies to its former state, or like artists who are underappreciated through their lifetimes only to be revered in posterity, so too are dissenting judgements ensconced in the truth that they too may become law in the future, indeed they form the basis for a lot of future judgements, and dissenting judges have been respected since time immemorial as upholders of the Constitution and their ability to interpret it, and stand by their beliefs. The Judiciary has a responsibility to the nation, indeed judges have stood up against the majority verdict in the hope that their lone voices may be heard in the future. Perhaps the most famous judge to pronounce a dissenting verdict in the history of the Indian Judiciary, a man who is now revered as one of the champions of the Constitution and everything it stood for, was Justice Hans Raj Khanna for whom the New York Times reportedly remarked, “If India ever finds its way back to the freedom and democracy that were proud hallmarks of its first eighteen years as an independent nation, someone will surely erect a monument to Justice HR Khanna of the Supreme Court. .” Justice Khanna served as a Judge in the Supreme Court of India between 1971 and 1977, and in those six years, pronounced verdicts that would define Indian democracy. In probably one of the most celebrated, analysed, and studied judgements in Indian judicial history, i.e. ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla , Justice Khanna delivered a judgement that would earn him huge plaudits and also cost him the post of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It all started with the verdict of the Allahabad High Court in State of UP vs Raj Narain , where the Court held Indira Gandhi guilty of election malpractices, invalidated her election, and further barred her for 6 years from contesting elections. While the High court judgment was appealed to the Supreme Court of India, Indira Gandhi, in the face of an unprecedented protest from an opposition united under J.P. Narayan, invoked Article 352, declaring a National Emergency on the grounds of Threat from Internal Disturbance. Within two days of the declaration of emergency, on 27th June 1975, a Presidential order was issued that no writ of Habeas Corpus would be maintainable in any High Court against such arrest/detention. Mrs. Gandhi thus muzzled the Press and the Opposition. The Government made extensive use of Preventive Detention under the auspices of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) , arresting people not because they had committed any offence, but on the “apprehension” that they may commit one. Many cases were filed in the courts against the wrongful and illegal detention, and nine High Courts passed Judgments in favour of people challenging their detention. The Government (read Indira Gandhi) decided to appeal against these decisions to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court applied the procedure established by law, unfortunately in letter, but not in spirit, and overturned the judgement by high courts, declaring that Article 32 which is the right to approach the Supreme Court to defend Fundamental Rights remained suspended under emergency. In this, the darkest hour of Indian democracy shone a beacon of light in the form of Justice Khanna. In a scathing indictment of the Indira Gandhi way of democracy, he said “Even in the absence of Article 21 in the Constitution, the State has got no power to deprive a person of his life or liberty without the authority of law. This is the essential postulate and basic assumption of the rule of law and not of men in all civilised nations. Without such sanctity of life and liberty, the distinction between a lawless society and one governed by laws would cease to have any meaning.” Eventually post the Emergency era, the Janata Party government did overturn the regressive law, and showed faith in Justice Khanna’s verdict. Justice Subba Rao pre-dated Justice Khanna, he was a Judge and subsequently Chief Justice of the Supreme Court between 1958 and 1967, indeed the more famous case that Justice Subba Rao is known for (IC Golaknath v State of Punjab ) on the power of the Legislature to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was famously clarified by the aforementioned Justice Khanna in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala where the basic structure doctrine was propounded, and further solidified by Minerva Mills v Union of India . Interestingly, the first time the matter came up was in Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan , where the majority ruled in favour of amendment, however, Justices Hidayatullah and Mudholkar dissented, and the matter was taken up on the basis of the said dissent by a larger bench in I.C. Golaknath v State of Punjab. Justice Subba Rao is almost as well known for his dissenting voice in the case of Kharak Singh v State of UP . In his dissenting judgment, Justice Subba Rao widened the scope of personal liberty and remarked, writing as he was in 1963 – “It is true our constitution does not expressly declare a right to privacy as a fundamental right, but the said right is an essential ingredient of personal liberty.” His lone voice stood out in a case where the police force in Uttar Pradesh had placed the Plaintiff under surveillance, thereby infringing upon the Plaintiff’s right to Privacy. In 2017, a Nine-Member Constitutional bench in KS Puttaswami v Union of India finally overturned, in a historic judgement, the judgements propounded in the ADM Jabalpur and the Kharak Singh cases (even though Constitutional amendments had effectively changed the decisions anyway). The stands of Justices Khanna and Subba Rao were vindicated where a unanimous decision of the Court held that the Right was a Privacy was a Fundamental right under Article 21. The case, brought by a retired High Court Judge, Justice Puttaswamy, challenged the Government’s proposed scheme for Aadhar which would be mandatory for access to government services and benefits. The Government pleader actually audaciously argued that the Constitution did not grant specific protection for the Right to Privacy. The Court reasoned that privacy is an incident of fundamental freedom or liberty guaranteed under Article 21 which provides that: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. Interestingly, the bench was headed by Justice DY Chandrachud who overturned the majority decision of his own father (Justice YV Chandrachud) in the ADM Jabalpur case. Funnily enough Justice DY Chandrachud would be in the minority in a later judgement in the same case involving a different question of law, a dissenting verdict that has received widespread plaudits. The said judgement has been iterated later in this very paper. Certain judicial dissents have been recognised by the Legislature and hence written into the Statute books. In New Maneck Spinning v Textile Labour , the judgement of Justice Subba Rao in 1961 formed the basis of the passing of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Justice Subba Rao's line of argument was a minimum bonus payable irrespective of the profit or the loss of the employer. So too the ADM Jabalpur case, the legislature subsequently wrote laws into further Acts on the basis of Justice Khanna's dissenting verdict. While the Legislature has been slower to accept dissenting verdicts, the Judiciary has been known to introspect and decipher dissenting minority verdicts and pass judgements to their effect in the future. In AK Gopalan v State of Madras , the question that came before the Court was whether preventive detention violated Articles 13,19,21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution. A Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed. The majority bench held that Articles 19, 21 and 22 were mutually exclusive, and that Article 19 was to not apply to a law affecting personal liberty to which Article 21 applied. In the above case, the restrictions under Article 19 applied only to free people. Therefore, unless the state arrested a person for making a speech, holding an assembly, forming an association or for entering a territory, the arrest had to be examined under article 21, and that a law affecting life and liberty could not be declared unconstitutional merely because it lacked the principle of Natural Justice or Due Process. In the minority was Justice Fazl Ali who broadly construed the provision “procedure established by law” in Article 21 to encompass higher principles of natural law and justice and not just statutory law. Eventually, Justice Fazl Ali’s dissent was recognised by a larger bench in in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India which overruled the majority opinion of Gopalan and held that any law which deprives a person of personal liberty under Article 21 should satisfy the requirement of Article 19. The Court also accepted the influence of the due process doctrine in Indian constitutional jurisprudence and said that any procedure must be “fair, just and reasonable.” Justice Subba Rao delivered another landmark dissent when in Radheyshyam Khare v The State of Madhya Pradesh , where he ruled against the majority that the principles of natural justice must apply to all, including administrative bodies. His contention was that the concept of a judicial act had been conceived and developed by the English judges with a view to keep administrative tribunals and authorities within bounds, and unless, the said concept was broadly and liberally interpreted, the object would be defeated, that is, the power of judicial review would become innocuous and ineffective. Interestingly, a judgement in concurrence with this dissent was passed a few years later in what would become a landmark judgement of the House of Lords in the UK in Ridge v Baldwin . Justice Subba Rao’s stance was vindicated when, in AK Kraipak v Union of India a decade down the line, the Court ruled that if an individual’s rights were being affected by an administrative authority, he must be heard. H.M. Seervai said that it was Justice J.L. Kapur’s dissent in the K.M. Nanavati v State of Bombay case on the Governor’s pardon which caused him to write his magnum opus on the Constitution. Justice P.N. Bhagwati was of the view that High Court judges should not be transferred without consent. He famously quoted in the Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth v Union of India case “If Article 222(1) is interpreted to mean non-consensual transfer too this power of the executive would become a dangerous power, because the executive would then have an unbridled charter to inflict injury on a High Court judge by transferring him from the High Court to which he originally agreed to be appointed to another High Court if he decides cases against the government or delivers judgments which do not meet with the approval of the executive. That would gravely undermine the independence of the judiciary”. He sustained his dissent in S.P. Gupta v Union of India . This later led to the birth of the collegium system. Judicial Dissent is not a mere relic of the past. In the last year itself, two major judicial dissents have received widespread plaudits, maybe the most momentous and celebrated of which was the one put forth by that lead author of the aforementioned Right to Privacy judgement, Justice DY Chandrachud . In India’s effort to build a national database of citizens and link all the services provided to them in the form of Aadhar arose a very interesting question on the Constitutionality of the Aadhar Act. The Petitioners in a six-year long case argued on various points like the fact that Aadhar should not have been passed as a money bill (which effectively nullified the effect of the Rajya Sabha). Their claim was that since Article 110 of the Constitution defined the scope of a Money Bill and laid down the criteria, (that relate to the Consolidated Fund of India, revenue and taxation), which every provision of the Bill must adhere to in order to be certified as a Money Bill. Article 110 uses the word “only” to limit the ambit of the Bill; the text of the Article states at the outset that “a Bill shall be deemed to be a Money Bill if it contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following matters”. Article 110 also lays down that on the question of whether a Bill is properly certifiable as a Money Bill, the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision is final.Two previous decisions of the Supreme Court had held that the finality of a Bill’s certification as a Money Bill was not open to question in any court, including the Supreme Court. These decisions, however, ran contrary to the decisions of at least two Constitution Bench verdicts that had held that the finality of the Speaker’s decision meant only immunity from appeal and not immunity from judicial review for non-compliance with constitutional provisions.The petitioners in the Aadhaar case contended that the Speaker’s certification of the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill was illegal and that the Act, having not been duly passed, was stillborn, a nullity, and therefore had no force of law. The government, on the other hand, argued that the Supreme Court could not review the Speaker’s decisions and that the Aadhaar Act, dealing with targeted delivery of subsidies and benefits flowing out of the Consolidated Fund of India, was correctly certified in any event. Justice Chandrachud in his dissent concluded that the certification of the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill was completely illegal and unconstitutional and struck down the Act for violation of Article 110. He said: “The Rajya Sabha has an important role in the making of laws. Superseding the authority of the Rajya Sabha is in conflict with the constitutional scheme and the legitimacy of democratic institutions. It constitutes a fraud on the Constitution.”. Another issue on which Justice Chandrachud’s opinion was in sharp contrast to the majority opinion was on the correctness of the government’s action of making Aadhaar mandatory for several schemes while the interim orders of the Supreme Court were still in operation. The majority held that the government’s conduct was improper and unfair as it did not seek a variation order from the court but stopped short of striking down those notifications. Justice Chandrachud’s opinion went further: He struck down those notifications and held that the Union government’s conduct violated the rule of law and its own constitutional duty. His judgment stated: “Institutions of governance are bound by a sense of constitutional morality which requires them to abide by judicial orders. What seems to emerge from the course of action which has been followed in the present case by government is a perception that judicial directions can be ignored on a supposed construction of the statute. If we were not to enforce a punctilious compliance with our own directions by government, that would ring a death knell of the institutional position of the Supreme Court.” While Justice Chandrachud’s dissent here lies as a mere judicial dissent, its effect will doubtless be felt in future judgements. What is involved are two discourses: the discourse of the judges which helps us to understand the law including the Constitution, the discourse of the public on the judgment without which neither democracy nor the rule of law can survive. Justice Lord Atkins, in a judgment, rightly pointed out that justice is not a cloistered virtue but should withstand the respectful scrutiny of people. We must honour bona fide dissents which may rewrite the past for the future . Another Justice DY Chandrachud dissent that may make the history books is in the Bhima Koregaon Case where a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, with a 2:1 majority refused to constitute a Special Investigation Team to probe the case concerning the arrest of five lawyers/journalists/human rights activists relating to violence in Bhima Koregaon. Justice Chandrachud observed that “dissent is a symbol of vibrant democracy” and “voices in opposition cannot be muzzled by persecuting those who take up unpopular causes”, to hold that a Special Investigating Team must be appointed to probe the arrest of five activists in connection with the Bhima-Koregaon violence and that the probe must be monitored by the court. A short note to Justice Indu Malhotra’s dissent in that highly contentious Sabarimala verdict where she in a minority view held that “Judicial review of religious practises ought not to be undertaken, as the Court cannot impose its morality or rationality with respect to the form of worship of a deity. Doing so would negate the freedom to practise one’s religion according to one’s faith and beliefs. It would amount to rationalising religion, faith and beliefs, which is outside the ken of Courts” It is pertinent to note that while the bench with a 4:1 majority, struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, paving way for entry of women between the ages 10 and 50 into the Sabarimala temple, the lone voice of dissent stood in the form of a woman. Her judgement has been widely lauded as a true protector of the Fundamental Right to Religion as guaranteed under Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution. The importance of Judicial dissent has been put so succinctly by that Justice Khanna, who remarked in that ADM Jabalpur judgement “Before I part with the case, I may observe that the consciousness that the view expressed by me is at variance with that of the majority of my learned brethren has not stood in the way of my expressing the same. I am aware of the desirability of unanimity, if possible. Unanimity obtained without sacrifice of conviction comments the decision to public confidence. Unanimity which is merely formal and which is recorded at the expense of strong conflicting views is not desirable in a court of last resort. As observed by Chief Justice Hughes Prophets’; with Honor by Alan Earth, (1974 Ed. p. 3-6) Judges are not there simply to decide cases, but to decide them as they think they should be decided, and while it may be regrettable that they cannot always agree, it is better that their independence should be maintained and recognized than that unanimity should be secured through its sacrifice. A dissent in a court of last resort… is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes the court to have been betrayed.”

Abstract This research explores the filing and management of civil suits under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, with a focus on procedural compliance. Suits are civil actions initiated by a plaintiff to enforce legal rights against a defendant. The paper discusses the requirements of a plaint, including jurisdiction, cause of action, and limitation period, and elaborates on key CPC provisions and judicial decisions that shape civil litigation in India. The research emphasizes the importance of adherence to statutory requirements, ensuring fairness and efficiency in civil trials.   Introduction A civil "suit" refers to legal proceedings initiated by a plaintiff to enforce a right or remedy. Governed by the CPC, the procedural laws aim to ensure uniformity in how civil disputes are adjudicated. The CPC is unique in that it contains both sections and orders/rules. Sections (1-158) lay out the general legal framework, while Orders provide detailed procedural rules. For example, Section 9 of the CPC provides that courts shall have jurisdiction to try all civil suits unless specifically barred. On the other hand, Orders I-L I elaborate on specific procedural guidelines like Order VI , which relates to pleadings, and Order VII Rule 1 , which defines the necessary components of a plaint.   Civil suits can be categorized into several types, each serving different legal purposes: 1.     Civil Suits: These are the most common types of suits where the plaintiff seeks to hold the defendant liable for harm or wrongful acts. Examples include personal injury claims, breach of contract, and property disputes. 2.     Criminal Suits: Although not typically referred to as "suits," criminal proceedings involve the state prosecuting an individual or entity for violating criminal laws. The primary aim is to impose penalties such as imprisonment or fines. 3.     Special Suits: These include specific types of legal actions such as civil servant suits, where government employees challenge the legality of statutes or regulations they are tasked with enforcing. Another example is citizen law suits (CLS) in environmental protection, where citizens sue to enforce environmental laws and regulations.   Several key elements are essential in constituting a suit: 1.     Plaintiff: The party who initiates the lawsuit, claiming to have suffered a loss or injury due to the defendant's actions. 2.     Defendant: The party against whom the lawsuit is brought, alleged to be responsible for the plaintiff's harm or loss. 3.     Cause of Action: The legal basis for the lawsuit, detailing the plaintiff's claims and the specific laws or rights allegedly violated by the defendant. 4.     Relief Sought: The specific remedy or compensation the plaintiff seeks from the court, which could include monetary damages, injunctions, or specific performance.   1.     Overview of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in India, enacted in 1908, serves as the primary legislation governing the procedural aspects of civil litigation. Its primary purpose is to ensure a fair and efficient process for the resolution of civil disputes. The CPC outlines the steps for filing a suit, the conduct of trials, and the execution of decrees, thereby providing a comprehensive framework for civil proceedings. The CPC applies to all civil courts in India, except for those in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which has its own civil procedure code. The jurisdiction of the CPC extends to all civil cases, ensuring uniformity and consistency in the procedural aspects of civil litigation across the country. The CPC's provisions are designed to facilitate the just, efficient, and expeditious resolution of civil disputes, thereby upholding the principles of equity and legal jurisprudence. The CPC is divided into two parts, namely, Sections and Orders. The first part contains sections (1 to 158); and the second part consists of orders and rules (Order I to Order LI). The key principles of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) are outlined in the Sections, while the specific steps and methods for implementing these principles are detailed in the Orders. Furthermore, Section 122 gives the High Court the authority to modify the rules related to procedures specified in the Orders.   Key Sections Related to Filing and Management of Suits 1.     Order I, Rule 10: This rule addresses the addition and substitution of parties in a suit. It aims to bring all necessary parties on record to resolve the dispute comprehensively and avoid multiple proceedings. 2.     Order XXXIII, Rule 11: This rule allows the court to revoke the permission granted to an indigent plaintiff to sue if there is non-delivery of summons or non-appearance of the plaintiff when the suit is called for hearing. This ensures that the privilege of suing as an indigent person is not misused. 3.     Order XXXIII, Rule 11-A: This rule mandates the court to order the recovery of court fees and other litigation expenses from the estate of a deceased indigent plaintiff. This provision ensures that the financial burden of litigation is appropriately managed even after the plaintiff's death.   2.     Filing a Suit The initial stage of civil litigation is drafting and filing the plaint. Order VI Rule 1 and Order VII Rule 1 set the format and contents of a plaint, which must contain facts that constitute the cause of action, the jurisdiction, and the relief sought. Section 26 CPC formalizes this by mandating that all suits be instituted through a plaint. A relevant case illustrating the importance of a properly drafted plaint is Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India , where failure to disclose a valid cause of action led to rejection under Order VII Rule 11.   2.1   Importance of Jurisdiction, Cause of Action, and Limitation Period Jurisdiction: The concept of Jurisdiction is central to civil litigation. It refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide a case. Section 20 CPC defines territorial jurisdiction based on the defendant’s residence or where the cause of action arises. It is crucial to file the suit in the correct jurisdiction to avoid dismissal. Jurisdiction can be based on various factors, including the location of the parties, the subject matter of the dispute, and the monetary value involved. Cause of Action: The cause of action is the legal basis for the suit. It must be clearly stated in the plaint and should outline the facts that give rise to the plaintiff's claim. A well-defined cause of action is essential for the court to understand the nature of the dispute and the relief sought. The landmark case of   'Readymoney Ltd. v. State of Punjab' AIR 1995 SC 185 provides valuable insights into the concept of cause of action and its significance in civil litigation. Limitation Period: The Limitation Act, 1963, prescribes specific time limits within which different types of suits must be filed.  Order VII Rule 6 requires that any suit filed beyond the limitation period should provide reasons for condonation of delay, as recognized in Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd..   2.2. The roles of court fees, verification of the plaint, and preliminary objections Court fees: Court fees are mandatory payments that a plaintiff must make when filing a lawsuit. These fees are calculated based on the value of the claim and are intended to cover administrative costs associated with processing the case. The primary purpose of court fees is to ensure that only serious and genuine claims are brought before the court. It also helps prevent frivolous lawsuits. If the court fees are not paid, the court may refuse to accept the plaint, effectively preventing the lawsuit from proceeding. However, in certain cases, plaintiffs may seek an exemption or reduction in fees, such as in instances of financial hardship.   Verification of the Plaint: The verification of the plaint is a formal statement by the plaintiff affirming that the facts stated in the plaint are true to the best of their knowledge and belief. Verification serves to hold the plaintiff accountable for the truthfulness of the statements made in the plaint. It acts as a safeguard against false claims and ensures that the plaintiff has a legitimate basis for the lawsuit. The plaint must be verified under Order VI Rule 15 , ensuring that the plaintiff swears the truthfulness of the facts. Failure to adhere to this can render the plaint defective, as observed in Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh.   Preliminary Objections Preliminary objections are defences raised by the defendant at the outset of the case, before the case proceeds to the merits. These are governed by Order VII Rule 11 (rejection of plaint) and include grounds like lack of jurisdiction or inadequate court fees. The purpose of preliminary objections is to resolve any fundamental issues that could prevent the case from being heard on its merits. If successful, these objections can lead to the dismissal of the case without a full trial.   Common Types of Preliminary Objections: Jurisdiction : The defendant may argue that the court does not have the authority to hear the case due to geographical or subject-matter limitations. Limitation : The defendant may claim that the suit is time-barred because it was not filed within the legally prescribed limitation period. Insufficient Court Fees: The defendant may object to the suit on the grounds that the plaintiff has not paid the appropriate court fees. If the court upholds a preliminary objection, the suit may be dismissed or require rectification before proceeding   2.3  The subsequent stages after the suit is filed After a suit is filed in a civil court, the case proceeds through several stages that are designed to ensure a fair trial and resolution. These stages include the submission of written statements, framing of issues, the presentation of evidence, and final arguments.   Written Statement The next practice is filing of the written statement after the plaintiff has filed the suit and the summons has been served to the defendant. The written statement is the defendant’s response to the plaint in which he or she either admit or deny the contents of the plaint by the plaintiff. The defendant can also state the Account of Facts and make references to legal arguments to make. The written statement is usually filled in 30 days of the receipt of the summons though by order of the court the time can again be extended. If the defendant refuses to provide his or her submissions in writing according to the time specified by the court, then the court may act on the plaintiff’s evidence alone and this may lead to an ex parte judgement. The written statement prepares the ground for identification of particulars of the controversy as is the case with the trial.   Framing of Issues Once the pleadings (plaint and written statement) are complete, the court frames the "issues" that are in dispute between the parties. Order XIV outlines that issues may be of fact or law and set the boundaries of the trial. The court will only adjudicate on these framed issues, narrowing down the disputes. A notable example is State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika, where the framing of issues became pivotal in the final outcome. Evidence Under Order XVIII,, both parties present their evidence to support their respective claims or defences. This can include documents, witness testimonies, and expert opinions. The plaintiff typically presents their evidence first, followed by the defendant. Both parties may cross-examine each other's witnesses. Only material relevant to the framed issues is considered, as per Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Arguments After the evidence has been presented, both parties have the opportunity to make their final arguments. This is where they summarize their case, interpret the evidence, and persuade the court to rule in their favor. Final arguments follow the evidence stage. This phase includes citing judicial precedents and interpreting the evidence. For example, State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik emphasized the importance of closing arguments in shaping the court's decision. Judgment and Decree After hearing the final arguments, the court deliberates and then delivers its judgment per Section 33 CPC and subsequently issues a decree under Order XX Rule 1. A decree is the final adjudication of the case. In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, the Supreme Court clarified the finality of decrees and their enforceability. Post-Judgment Proceedings If the decree is not voluntarily complied with, the successful party may initiate execution proceedings under Order XXI. Section 36 CPC also allows for the transfer of decrees to other courts for execution.   3.     Challenges and Considerations in Filing Suits Filing a suit under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) involves several challenges, from calculating the correct court fees to ensuring jurisdiction and limitation compliance. Procedural lapses can lead to delays or outright dismissals, as seen in Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Procedural irregularities, like non-compliance with Order VII Rule 10 regarding jurisdiction or Order VI Rule 16 on the striking out of unnecessary pleadings, can severely impact a case. Another common challenge is ensuring compliance with the limitation period. The CPC requires that suits be filed within specific time limits depending on the type of claim. Misunderstanding or miscalculating these time limits can result in the suit being time-barred, which usually leads to dismissal and leaves the plaintiff without legal recourse. Closely tied to this is the challenge of calculating and paying the correct court fees. In cases involving multiple claims or counterclaims, the calculation can become complex. Underpayment or non-payment of the requisite court fees often results in the plaint being rejected, causing delays and possibly necessitating the refiling of the suit with additional costs. Another important aspect that presents challenges is the drafting of the plaint itself. The plaint must also contain all the information that is required such as the cause of action and the juridical basis of the court alongside the relief sought. Lack of clarity in presenting a cause of action by a plaintiff puts the plaint at risk to be dismissed by the court or opposed by the defendant, thus resulting to further delay or dismissal of the plaint. Also, the plaintiff has to authenticate the plaint and confirm that the facts stated therein are true. Faults in this verification process for example, could result to legal issues, which may cause the need for corrections, re-verification and refilling of the case hence prolonging the case. Another common procedural issue usually seen is service of summons. The summons must be properly served to the defendant with intention of informing him that a lawsuit has been institutionalized against him or her so as to continue the case. Some of the issues may include determining where the defendant is or if the delivery is going to be on time or whether the defendant is attempting to avoid service. Negligent handling leads to either adjournments or dismissal of the suit meaning that a plaintiff has to begin the process from the beginning. Also, the defendant raising further objection following the ruling on preliminary objection also present another challenge. These objections seek to find defects in the plaint which are in relation to jurisdiction, the cause of action, or the limitation period. Some of these objections if sustained by the court may lead to dismissal of the suit and others may merely take long time to address and therefore delay the trial. Last but not the least, handling cases with multiple claims or parties involves procedural challenges. This involves procedures involving joining of proper parties, handling of pleadings involving consolidation of claims and all procedural issues regarding joinder of all necessary parties to the suit. Failure in this aspect may result in such an eventuality such that cases may take longer time in court, fragmented litigation or complete dismissal of some of the claims. All these challenges draw attention to the fact that there are specific rules that must be followed and steps that must be taken when filing a suit under the CPC since a single mistake may result to protraction of the suit or total dismissal of the lawsuit.   Conclusion In conclusion, the procedural framework for filing and managing suits under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in India is designed to ensure a fair, efficient, and just resolution of civil disputes. The detailed processes—from drafting the plaint and filing it in the correct jurisdiction to handling preliminary objections and presenting evidence—serve to uphold the integrity of the judicial system. However, the complexity of these procedures also poses significant challenges for litigants, including issues related to jurisdiction, compliance with limitation periods, and proper service of summons. These challenges underline the importance of careful preparation and adherence to procedural rules to avoid delays or dismissals. Ultimately, the effective management of civil suits is crucial for maintaining public confidence in the legal system and ensuring that justice is both accessible and equitable.