The illusion of justice: Corruption at every level of the criminal justice process

The promise of justice is not defeated only when courts reach the wrong conclusion; it is equally undermined when citizens navigate corruption, delay and procedural opacity simply to exercise rights guaranteed by law.

Few areas illustrate this reality more starkly than the process surrounding arrest and bail. Corruption has become the grease that smoothens the functioning of the judicial machinery at the subordinate level.

People are most desperate when their loved ones are arrested. This article deals with the levels at which people encounter corruption even before the accused is convicted. The facts and experiences stated in the article are from the courts functioning in the State of Odisha.

Let us assume that a person is arrested. His family members or friends contact an advocate to defend him and the first priority being to secure bail. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India states:

"No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice."

However, this provision was rarely followed until the Supreme Court, in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Another (2025), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another (2025) and a catena of other decisions, mandated that the grounds of arrest be provided in writing to the accused before being produced before a magistrate. Even today, however, not all accused persons are provided with the grounds of arrest.

At the time an accused is produced before a magistrate for the first time, the advocate for the accused often does not have access to a copy of the FIR and is at the mercy of the Public Prosecutor, who apprises him of the facts of the case. If the accused is implicated under non-bailable provisions, the chances of obtaining bail at the magistrate's court are bleak.

To obtain the documents necessary for arguing a bail application, advocates apply for certified copies. This often means paying the peon, dealing assistant, section clerk and all those involved in the process of issuing certified copies. Every one of these officials seems to believe that the salary they draw is paid merely for occupying the post and that the speed at which they work is directly proportional to the bribe paid to them by advocates.

After greasing the palms of officials to secure the necessary documents and through the advocate's skill and a measure of luck, the accused is enlarged on bail. Even then, the palms of the stenographer need to be greased. Otherwise, one faces inevitable delays in the typing and issuance of the bail order.

The conditions of bail almost certainly require a bailor to furnish a bail bond with surety in an amount determined by the court. The majority of bailors are professional bailors. This class consists largely of men and women who are in no way related to the accused and have no control over him. The logic and rationality behind this condition deserve introspection, because such bailors are generally not in a position to ensure that the accused appears to stand trial.

With the process almost complete, the accused can be released from jail only after the jail authorities receive the release order. That release order is generally carried by a peon acting as a special messenger and here too payment is demanded. Family members and friends of the accused often give in because by the time the release order is secured, it is usually evening. Failure to pay these special messengers may result in delaying tactics, which could mean that an accused spends another night in jail even after the release order has been prepared, as inmates cannot ordinarily be released once they have been sent to the barracks for the evening.

While corruption at the subordinate level directly affects the liberty of accused persons, procedural inefficiencies at higher levels of the judicial hierarchy also contribute significantly to delays in the administration of justice.

Although High Courts are generally immune from the creeping corruption found in subordinate courts, they do have their own lacunae. When a bail application is argued, the first date is often adjourned to secure the case diary. In an era where bail applications arising from the same FIR can be tagged together for better adjudication and with increasing technological interventions aimed at easing the delivery of justice, why can't standing orders be framed requiring the High Court Registry to obtain the updated case diary before a bail application is listed for adjudication?

Even advocates often do not object to the present arrangement because they charge on a per-date basis. Their fees would effectively be reduced if the case diary were automatically placed on record before the matter was listed.

I wonder why, when the Supreme Court of India in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) held that the right to a speedy trial forms part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and when artificial intelligence and automation are being used in almost every field, they are not being adequately utilised in the judiciary.

Why can't documents such as seizure lists, grounds of arrest, arrest memos, injury reports,and other necessary records be uploaded to a dedicated portal that can be accessed by the advocate for the accused, rather than requiring navigation through a maze of administrative processes that demand the greasing of palms at every stage? Such a process should be time-bound and all uploads should be time-stamped.

Every document subsequently submitted - including statements recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, charge sheets and related records - should also be uploaded to the portal and made accessible.

When a release order is issued for an accused, why can't it be electronically transmitted, whether by email or other secure means, directly from the court to the jail authorities?

In the Indian judicial system, the process itself often becomes the punishment. It drains citizens financially, damages their physical and mental health, and erodes faith in institutions meant to protect liberty. Judicial reform is not merely a question of efficiency; it is a constitutional imperative. Unless technology, transparency and accountability are integrated into every stage of the criminal process, the promise of justice will remain inaccessible to many who need it most.

Bismay Ray is an advocate practising before the High Court of Orissa and other subordinate courts.

The views expressed are personal.