People sent to jail only for optics: Supreme Court flags colonial-era investigation practices

The Supreme Court on Tuesday criticised the continued reliance on colonial-era investigation practices and called for urgent capacity-building in forensic investigation and witness protection [Suryakant Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh].

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi made the remarks while hearing a plea by the State of Chhattisgarh seeking cancellation of interim bail granted to businessman Suryakant Tiwari in a case involving alleged extortion from coal transporters, reportedly in connivance with senior officials in the Chief Minister’s Office. Tiwari is also an accused in a separate case involving misuse of District Mineral Foundation (DMF) funds.

The Bench questioned the State’s approach to criminal investigation and trial, stating that modern financial crimes could not be effectively prosecuted through outdated methods.

“We only send people to jail and feel there is an optics that criminal law is in motion,” it observed.

When the State alleged that Tiwari had attempted to threaten a co-accused while in jail, the Bench asked if jail was the only available tool for ensuring witness safety.

“The only way to protect witnesses is to keep the accused in jail? How much has your State given to the witness protection scheme? Nothing…This is just a colonial hangover. Is this an archaic 18th century investigation?” Justice Bagchi asked.

The Court questioned whether the State had built any institutional framework to support modern financial crime investigation, such as deploying forensic accountants or specialised investigators.

“You have an EoW department. You don’t have financial accountants who are joined in investigations like these. Tomorrow you will have offences on the dark web, where transfer of funds will happen through cryptocurrency. Where is your capacity to handle that?” Justice Bagchi asked.

Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the State, submitted that Tiwari was a “habitual offender” and politically influential. He claimed that the accused had tampered with witnesses from jail, and emphasised the seriousness of the coal levy scam, where ₹25 per tonne was allegedly extorted from transporters.

“He is a big don. He is politically connected, he has muscle power, he has financial power. He is the right-hand man of the Chief Minister,” Jethmalani submitted.

Responding to these arguments, the Bench stressed that the trial must be based on quality evidence and supported by systemic improvements in judicial infrastructure.

“Judges don’t do justice in vacuum. They require stakeholders like investigators, able prosecutors…This is the problem. In India, witnesses will keep getting influenced due to peer pressure, due to several circumstances. You need to come up with more technological methods,” the Court said.

The Bench further remarked that continued delays in trials eroded the impact of criminal proceedings and made bail the norm by default.

“If these trials are to take 5 years, 7 years to conclude, the fait accompli is known. Nothing is going to happen. You need to have dedicated courts dealing with no other case,” Justice Kant said.

It noted that many states lacked the financial capacity to constitute such dedicated courts, and highlighted the systemic problem of trial delays caused by limited judicial resources.

“Most of the states nowadays are struggling every month to generate revenue and pay salaries. They don’t have priority to establish special courts, dedicated courts, etc. for day-to-day trials,” Justice Kant said.

When Jethmalani pointed out that frivolous applications were delaying proceedings and hurting investigations, the Court maintained that the solution lay in restructuring the trial process, not just custody.

“If we ask a judicial officer to concentrate on this, that poor fellow will do it at the cost of some senior citizen, some other person who is languishing in jail. Personally, I am not in favour of blindly increasing cadre strength. It’s time for specialised courts,” Justice Kant opined.

The Court also expressed concern about the over-reliance on statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) as the primary basis of prosecution, stating that such statements should only be corroborative.

“Forget about that confession. Place other evidence and then use that confession. It should be the other way around. 164 should be supporting evidence, not substantive evidence."

When Jethmalani referred to WhatsApp chats and digital evidence, the Bench endorsed the shift towards more tamper-proof evidence.

“Don’t tell us about diary entries…WhatsApp is your best evidence. Weak evidence is the witness who is flip-flopping. So forget that. You have digital evidence."

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Tiwari, argued that his client had already spent over three years in jail and that others similarly placed had secured bail. He contended that the State was simply opposing bail to make an example out of Tiwari.

“This is a complete waste of judicial time. Bail has been granted in identical circumstances. Why not me?” Rohatgi submitted.

The Court ultimately reserved its order after hearing arguments from both sides.

[Read Live Coverage]