New CrPc will only expedite sentencing

The proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc) have evoked extreme reactions. While the government claims that the amendments would make the police force humane and help the judiciary reduce the backlog of cases, lawyers are denying this. Civil liberties activist Shivasundar spoke to DNA on the consequences of the CrPC amendments.

Why are lawyers opposing the proposed amendments to the CrPC?
There may be more than one reason for this. A few lawyers might be opposing the amendments because they fear it would take away their jobs. In my view, the media had given them more publicity than was necessary.

Let’s focus on the reasons of those lawyers to whom securing human rights and civil liberties is more important than their jobs. We need to understand why these lawyers are also opposing the amendments to CrPC.

Do the amendments give more power to the police? 
The amendment to Section 41 not only give more power to the police but also render weaker sections of the society further vulnerable. Any law gains real meaning only when it is implemented in the right context.

The way criminal jurisprudence is exercised, especially against communities which are disadvantaged socio-economically and culturally, is a tragic testimony to the deep-rooted prejudice against them. The poor, the dispossessed, Dalits, Adivasis and minorities are easy targets of the police. The amendment to Section 41, which allows the police to simply send a notice to the accused to appear before them, may be seen as a relief. In truth, it does not mean anything to these communities whose members are regularly detained without warrant or notices. At best, the amendment legalises the rampant extra-judicial detentions by the police.

How do these amendments affect the interests of the people?  
While amendment to Section 41 legalises police atrocities, amendment to Section 309 CrPC make the vulnerable defenceless even in the court of law. While a sub-clause of the amendment disallows the plea for adjournment made by the parties or the lawyers and does not consider absence of the defence lawyer as ground for adjournment, another clause allows the court to deliver judgment even without the cross-examination of the evidence. These amendments are contrary to the spirit of justice and are at loggerheads with the interests of the public.

It was stated that this is done to expedite proceedings and reduce the weight of
backlog in courts. Your comments.
What is important is to expedite delivery of justice and not expedite delivery of punishment. This will only fasten the proceedings and reduce the backlog at the cost of justice and liberty which are basic pillars of a liberal jurisprudence.