Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana spoke recently of the need to “move away from colonial rules followed in the country’s legal system, and towards an ‘Indianisation’ of the same”. https://thewire.in/law/indianisation-justice-system-nv-ramana-democracy-nation-state
In the post-independence decades, ‘Indianisation’ has not signified any particular trajectory of change. Sometimes, it has coincided with the democratisation of public spaces, or increased access, or more transparency. At other times, however, it has meant quite the opposite: the crystallisation of the idea of a ‘strong nation state’, with fewer deliberations and debates. ‘Indianisation’ has also meant, for some, a conflation of the country with particularist religo-cultural representations.
The CJI’s use of ‘Indianisation’ is a reference to the need for the ‘democratisation’ of justice delivery, as opposed to iterating a scheme, which has the state at its centre. He speaks of the ‘barriers [of style and language] for common people in approaching the justice delivery system’.
Comments:
Charu: A comprehensive analysis tying the colonial attitude to the high number of arrests to the increase in the number of cases and the aggravation of the problem of pending cases. It's like a funnel, and there's little filtration done in the first few steps. So the jails and courts are flooded, when the there should only have been a trickle of people there.
John: the article itself says that Change perhaps should be imagined through frames of democratisation, and beyond the colonial-Indian binary. If the judicial system is based on adversorial claims, then investigative powers must be separated any from one, in this case the State, and making it democratic means that is should be held accountable for fairness to both -- the State and the accused, This also means seperating investigation from the "police" or at least those parts who in charge of maintenance of law and order. This is particularly important, because often it is the incompetence of the police that has led to most political crimes. This means that the prosecutors office should also be distanced from the police.
In traditional rural systems the open village panchayat, can take immediate decision. But a right to appeal will need what some would mistakenly call a "colonial system" which required proper documentation on facts, and process and judgement. It also means that the principles laid down in the constitution prevail on the principles or tradition of that particular village unless the constitution specifically gives that power to the village. a case in point is the Forest Act, which is not again being sought to be "colonised" or more correctly "nationalised" rather that "republicalised".. How else would we have a situation where BK16 cases shift to the centre as soon as the State government changes. Why am i taking the trouble to detail this? Mainly because the "anti-colonial" whip is being increasingly used to undermine simple civil liberties.