Judicial Inquiry

WHAT IS JUDICIAL INQUIRY?

A judicial inquiry is an official investigation conducted by a judicial officer, often a judge or magistrate. These inquiries are commonly invoked in cases involving custodial death, police misconduct, or corruption where there is a distinct need for independent analysis beyond the reach of administrative or police control.

TYPES OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY

Judicial Inquiry: Deaths

The most common types of judicial inquiries in India concern cases of custodial deaths, police brutality, or accidental deaths during police actions. Judicial inquiries in such cases are majorly governed by Section 196 of the BNSS and are conducted by judicial officers (as entailed below), who are authorized to examine evidence and make determinations of the cause of death.

Judicial Inquiry: Conflict Situations or Riots

In conflict situations, such as communal riots or large-scale civil unrest, judicial inquiries are often conducted to assess the root causes of the arising conflict and identify responsible parties. Relevant examples include judicial inquiries into the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and the 2002 Gujarat riots, where judicial commissions were set up to examine allegations of police complicity and state responsibility.

Judicial Inquiry: Public Misconduct

Another significant type of judicial inquiry concerns misconduct by public officials, including politicians, government employees, or law enforcement officers. These inquiries, often conducted by specialized judicial bodies or commissions, inevitably become extremely relevant to maintaining public trust in the system.

JUDICIAL INQUIRY-  AS DEFINED BY LEGISLATION

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

Section 196 of the BNSS provides a framework for the functioning of judicial inquiries, especially in cases related to custodial deaths, disappearances, and rape allegations. Subsection (1) specifies that in cases where a person dies or disappears under police or judicial custody, or in cases of alleged rape in custody, the nearest judicial magistrate is mandated to conduct an inquiry into the alleged offense. It is important to note that this inquiry is in addition to (or in some cases, instead of) the police investigation, granting the magistrate all the powers required for a complete inquiry into a criminal offense. Subsection (2) extends the scope, elaborating on how Judicial Magistrates within the local jurisdiction must hold an inquiry, ensuring that such incidents are independently reviewed.

Subsection (3) outlines the procedural aspects. The judicial magistrate is responsible for recording the evidence gathered during the inquiry, which must be done in accordance with the circumstances of the case, guaranteeing that all relevant facts are properly documented. Subsection (4) delineates the procedure for disinterment of a deceased person's body if the magistrate deems it necessary for a post-mortem examination. This is augmented by subsection (6) which mandates that the body of the deceased be sent to the nearest civil surgeon or any other qualified medical professional for a post-mortem examination within 24 hours of death, avoiding delays that could potentially compromise the integrity of the investigation.

When compared to the previously established Section 176 1(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Section 196 of the BNSS shows significant deviations in the type of magistrate authorized to conduct judicial inquiries. The term “judicial inquiry” as used in the CrPC has been replaced by the term “inquiry” in the BNSS, signaling a shift from the authorization of only judicial magistrates to a broader system involving the authorization of executive magistrates as well.

Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952

This act was passed as a means for the government to order impartial and substantive inquiries into matters of national importance. Under sub-section (5) of section 5, the act states that inquiries constituted under it shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings. The relevance of this Act in light of “judicial inquiry” is hence to the extent that in the presence of a judicial officer or in the case that the inquiry is conducted under the supervision of a court, the inquiry so constituted will be considered a “judicial inquiry”. Therefore inquiries satisfying the mentioned criteria hold the same legal value as that of a judicial inquiry.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

This law, though inconclusive to the direct topic of “judicial inquiry”, is relevant due to its interpretation clause. Section 2(1)(a) states; that the "Court" includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorized to take evidence. This is important as it helps contextualize that a fact-finding proceeding conducted by a judicial body is also encompassed under the ambit of a “judicial inquiry.”

JUDICIAL INQUIRY- AS DEFINED IN THE GOVERNMENT REPORT

156th Law Commission of India Report

This report under sections 46 and 47 is a contextualization of the CrPC amendment done by the 25th Act of Parliament in 2005, wherein it was added that; in the case of death or disappearance of a person, or rape of a woman while in the custody of the police, there shall be mandatory judicial inquiry and in case of death, examination of the dead body shall be conducted within 24 hours.

This amendment broadened the ambit of judicial inquiry as done by the magistrate in order to ensure the impartiality of such proceedings. An executive inquiry into such a sensitive issue might result in biased findings that are unable to ensure justice.

National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Guidelines

The first guideline dated 05/04/2010 aimed at plugging an apparent ambiguity in the insertion of S 176(1)A to the CrPC. This guideline necessitated that the Magistrate be either a Judicial magistrate or a Metropolitan magistrate. This was done so as to ensure a unified standard across all inquiries that are carried out.

This guideline now stands nullified after the introduction of the new criminal laws (BNS) on 01/07/2024, as the apparent ambiguities have now been clarified. However, the NHRC under its notice dated 14/05/2024 has retained its past standard necessitating a Judicial/Metropolitan Magistrate for cases that were initiated prior to the introduction of the BNS.

JUDICIAL INQUIRY- AS DEFINED BY CASE LAWS

People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs State of Maharashtra & Others, (2014) 10 SCC 635

This case pertains to a Supreme Court judgment that sets guidelines for the investigation after an extrajudicial killing by the police. The judgment helps ensure accountability in these events by establishing a double redundancy. Firstly there must be an investigation by the Police, conducted by a special team to ensure impartiality. The second measure constituted is the establishment of a “judicial inquiry” by the magistrate to ensure that a complete understanding of the incident can be obtained in an unbiased manner.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416

In this case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the relevance of Section 176 CrPC in cases pertaining to custodial violence. The judgment talks about the importance of judicial inquiries in ensuring accountability post cases of custodial violence, as such inquiries are impartial and scrutinized by the Judicial Magistrate.

The presence of such an inquiry acts as a measure of balance to ensure that the police conduct their investigation to the highest of standards barring which the judicial inquiry will penalize them.

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746

This is a Supreme Court judgement that established the basis for awarding compensation to the families of Custodial Death victims. Its relevance to the judicial inquiry is significant as the basis for such compensation is the judicial inquiry carried out by the Magistrate as per S 176 of the CrPC. It also accorded the judicial inquiry significant weight, as the inquiry is to be wholly responsible for any fact-finding that is necessitated in the course of the investigation.

INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE

The United States of America

The conceptualization and subsequent execution of judicial inquiries in India deviate in several counts from those in the USA, largely due to the different procedural and institutional frameworks. In India, judicial inquiries are conducted by judicial or executive magistrates who are granted discretionary powers, which lead to significant discrepancies in the realistic execution of inquiries, largely dependent on regional or political factors.

On the other hand, the USA has a more formalized approach, with largely two clearly defined legal players:

1. Special Prosecutors are appointed in judicial inquiry cases where there is a potential conflict of interest, ensuring independent legal action, especially in sensitive cases requiring insulation from political pressures.
2. Independent Commissions are established to investigate specific issues like political misconduct or corruption, operating autonomously from the government to ensure impartiality and an overarching independence.

The USA’s use of special prosecutors and independent commissions ensures a sense of insulation from political influence. India could greatly benefit from the institutionalization of more independent bodies with guaranteed autonomy, especially in cases involving law enforcement.

Comparative Analysis of Common Law Countries

Aspect	United Kingdom	Australia	Lessons for India
Legal Framework	Governed by the Inquiries Act, 2005, ensuring independence and a clear structure	Governed by state-specific laws and federal frameworks like the Royal Commissions Act, 1902.	India finds mentions of judicial inquiry in distinct legislations, however it can greatly benefit from a dedicated and unified legal framework for judicial inquiries, streamlining processes across jurisdictions.

CHALLENGES TO  JUDICIAL INQUIRY

As we can see from the table, NCRB data shows that out of 75 custodial deaths in 2022, only 10 were elevated to the level of an inquiry which is a mere 13% of the annual caseload. This proves to be an impediment to the validity of Section 176 CrPC (now Section 196 BNSS), the fact that a sufficient number of cases aren’t even reaching the status of a judicial inquiry indicates that even though such an extensive and powerful tool exists, there is no use for it. Therefore, the challenge for judicial inquiry does not lie in its inability to address these issues but rather in the executive's inability to carry out their duties, leaving the process of judicial inquiry toothless.

WAY FORWARD

India must work towards creating a unified legal framework for judicial inquiries, ensuring structured accountability across jurisdictions. In addition to the Acts entailed above, in the UK, the Coroners and Justice Act ensures every custodial death is investigated impartially, while Australia’s Coronial System offers consistent oversight through independent authorities. In India however, varying state level processes often lead to delays and inconsistencies. A unified approach would streamline procedures, ensure independent oversight and centralize data creating a more structured system, committed to justice.