Today'sPaperOPINION

Alawthatfailedtokeeppacewithtime
AnilMalhotra
EventhoughtheCodeofCriminalProcedure1973repealstheCrPCof1898,legislativechangeshavenotfollowedintheCentralReserve
PoliceForceAct,1949

PRECONSTITUTIONALLAW:LeavingthecurrentstateofaffairstotheoutmodedcolonialpositionoftheCRPFActmakesitanunjustand
arbitraryprocesssubjecttobiasandmisuse.PictureshowsmembersoftheforceinJharkhandin2013.PHOTO:MANOBCHOWDHURY

FromfightinginsurgentsinKashmir,theMaoistsinChhattisgarh,andterroristsinstrifestrickenareastoactingas
troubleshootersinsensitiveareas,guardingthebordersofPunjabandmaintaininglawandorderduringtimesof
emergency,the230battalionsofIndiaslargestCentralArmedPoliceForce,theCentralReservePoliceForce(CRPF),
arestaunchsentinels.Butdespitethevaliantservicesthattheyperformforthenation,theygetarawdeal.Gallant
soldiersmustgettheirdueandthefirststeptowardsthisistoexaminetheirrightsandthelawsthatgovernthem.
TheCentralReservePoliceForceAct,1949(CRPFAct),anActthatprovidesfortheconstitutionandregulationofan
armedCRPF,isacolonialinheritanceoftheCrownsRepresentativePoliceForceLaw,1939.Despite67yearsof
independenceandtheframingofourownConstitution,wehaveretainedcertainprovisionsintheCRPFActwhichare
violativeoffundamentalfreedomstherighttoequality,equalprotectioninpublicemployment,andtherightto
protectionoflifeandpersonalliberty.TheseoughttobegrantedtomembersoftheCRPFincourseoftheirdutiesand
servicetothenation.FundamentalrightsprovidedbytheConstitution,whichhaveevolvedoveraperiodoftime,need
tofindrecognitionintheCRPFAct.
AccordingtotheAct,theextentofheinousoffencesaretobejudgedbytheCommandantofaBattalionbyexercising
powersofajudicialmagistrateconferredbytheCentralGovernment.Alltrialsaretobeheldinaccordancewiththe
procedurelaiddownintheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1898(CrPC).EventhoughCrPC1973repealsCrPc1898,
legislativechangeshavenotfollowedintheCRPFAct.ThisleavesnooptionbuttoreaddowntheCRPFActby
assumingapplicabilityofCrPC1973toconferapresumptionofconstitutionalityonthepreconstitutionalCRPFAct.
However,thisdoesnotmakepalatabletheexerciseofjudicialpowersbytheCommandantofBattalion,asCrPC1973
clearlyseparatesthejudiciaryfromtheexecutiveinlinewithArticle50thatmandatesthisseparation.
However,theCRPFActfollowsCrPC1898.Theprovisionsofthiscodeinvestedexecutiveofficerswithjudicialpowers
totryasamagistratealloffencesnotpunishablewithdeath.The41stReportoftheLawCommissionofIndia,which
wassubmittedinSeptember1969,recommendedtheseparationofthejudiciaryfromtheexecutiveonanallIndia
basistoensureimprovementsinthequalityofjusticebyhavingjudicialmagistrates,whowereappointedbytheHigh
Courts.Dispensingwiththearbitraryexerciseofdiscretionarypowersandactinginamannerconsistentwithknown
principlesoflawwasdesired.AfterbeingdiscussedbyajointselectcommitteeandbeingapprovedbybothHousesof
ParliamentandthePresident,CrPC1973cameintoforce.Consequently,allfunctionsrelatingtoappreciationof
evidence,impositionofpunishment,detentionincustody,inquiryortrial,cametobeexercisedbyajudicialmagistrate
undertheCrPC1973,andallministerialfunctionswerelefttotheexecutivemagistrates.Sincethen,alljudicial
magistratesareappointedbytheHighCourtsandspecialjudicialmagistratescanbenotifiedbytheHighCourts,if
theypossesssuchqualificationorexperienceinrelationtolegalaffairsastheHighCourtsrulesmayspecify.However,
executivemagistratescanbeappointedbytheStategovernmentstoperformexecutivefunctions.
Furtherauthorisations
ThedilemmaintheCRPFActisfurthercompoundedbythefactthattheCommandant,afterconductingajudicialtrial
forconvictingandsentencingamemberoftheforce,isalsofurtherauthorisedtopunishthesamememberoftheforce
departmentallydispensingwithaformalinquiryonthegroundofconvictiononacriminalcharge.Tobegiventhe
opportunityofahearing,adepartmentalinquiry,ortherightofdepartmentaldefence,hasbeendispensedwith,
withoutgivinganyreasonsasprovidedbytheCRPFRules,1955.Inahypotheticalsituation,aCommandantmaybe
framingthechargeasaprosecutor,convictingandsentencingasajudicialmagistrateandthenpunishingsummarily
asdepartmentalhead,withoutanyseparateinquirytocompletetheprocessinclosedquarters,inoneortwoweeks.
Inthelightofthe1973code,providingforcriminaltrialsbyjudicialmagistratesordulynotifiedspecialjudicial
magistratesbesidesconstitutionallymandatingadepartmentalinquiryexceptincertainsituationstheCRPFAct
isapreconstitutionallawcaughtinatimewarp.Membersofanemergencyforcemayrequireahighdegreeof
discipline,buttheydonotdeservesuchastraitjacketprocedurewhichnotonlycircumventsthelawbutalsodefiesall
canonsoftheprocessofnaturaljustice.Thegovernmentcannotremainoblivioustolawsrequiringequalityinmatters

ofpublicemploymentandatthesametimeignorethemandateofbasiccriminallawsoftheland.CRPFsoldiersneed
tobetreatedfairlyandwithaspiritofnaturaljustice.
RevisitingtheAct
TheCRPFcouldconsiderrevisitingtheCRPFActandCRPFRulestoamendtheminlinewiththeexistingprovisionsof
theCrPC1973andtheConstitution.Changescanbemadebycreatingarankandfileofjudiciallytrainedofficers
letteredinlaw.Theycouldconstituteaseparatecadreintheforcetoexercisespecialfunctions.Alternatively,aspecial
court,suchastheSecurityForceCourtoftheBorderSecurityForce(BSF),couldbeconstituted.Amendmentscanbe
madeintheCRPFActintandemwiththeprovisionsofCrPC1973fortheexerciseofjudicialfunctionstosuitthe
requirementsofthisspecialforce.LegalpracticesadoptedbytheBSF,theIndianArmy,theNavyandtheAirForce,
whichallmeetthetestoftimeandareinconsonancewiththeprevailingprovisionsoflaw,canbeemulatedwithout
compromisingontheneedforanindependentdisciplinaryprocedure.Aseparatejudicialforumcanbelegislatively
madeintheCRPF.LeavingthecurrentstateofaffairstotheoutmodedcolonialpositionoftheCRPFActmakesitan
unjust,arbitrary,unfairanddiscretionaryprocesssubjecttobiasandmisuse.Membersoftheforcewhosacrificetheir
livesforthenationdeservetobetreatedbetter.Itwouldbeunfairtoleavethemtotheirfatewhiletheyserveuswell.
(AnilMalhotraisaChandigarhbasedlawyer.)
DespitetheframingofourownConstitution,wehaveretainedcertainprovisionsintheCRPFAct
thatviolatefundamentalfreedoms