The Hidden Costs of Justice: Corruption in India’s Criminal System

The ideal of justice is not only compromised when courts deliver incorrect verdicts, but also when citizens encounter corruption, delays, and opaque procedures while exercising their legal rights. This predicament is particularly acute in the arrest and bail processes within the Indian judicial system. Corruption often acts as the lubricant for the judicial machinery, especially at the subordinate level, where citizens are most vulnerable following the arrest of loved ones.

This article delves into the pervasive corruption experienced even before an accused is convicted, with specific examples from the State of Odisha. When an individual is arrested, their family typically seeks an advocate to secure bail. According to Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution, “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.” Unfortunately, this provision is often neglected, prompting the Supreme Court, in cases like Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), to mandate that arrest grounds be provided in writing to the accused.

Despite these rulings, many accused still do not receive the grounds for their arrest. Advocates, when representing an accused in a magistrate’s court, frequently lack access to the First Information Report (FIR) and rely on the Public Prosecutor for case details. If charged under non-bailable sections, securing bail at this level is challenging. Obtaining certified copies of necessary documents involves navigating a bureaucratic maze where bribes are expected at multiple levels, from peons to clerks.

Once the required documents are obtained through unofficial payments, and with the advocate’s expertise and some luck, the accused may be granted bail. However, further payments might be needed to expedite the typing and issuance of the bail order. Bail conditions typically require a bailor to provide a bond with surety. Frequently, these bailors are professionals unrelated to the accused, raising questions about the efficacy of such requirements, as they often cannot ensure the accused’s appearance at trial.

The release process is similarly plagued by corruption. After a release order is issued, it must be delivered to the jail authorities, often by a peon acting as a special messenger who expects payment. Families usually comply to avoid delays, as failure to do so can result in the accused spending an additional night in jail if the release order arrives after inmates have been sent to barracks for the evening.

Corruption at subordinate levels significantly impacts an accused’s liberty, while procedural inefficiencies at higher judicial levels contribute to broader delays in justice administration. High Courts, though less corrupt, are not immune to inefficiencies. Bail applications are often adjourned to secure case diaries, despite technological advancements that could streamline this process.

Advocates typically do not contest this inefficiency, as they charge per court date, and automatic case diary submission could reduce their fees. Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) that the right to a speedy trial is part of Article 21 of the Constitution, technological solutions like artificial intelligence and automation remain underutilized in the judiciary.

Instead of navigating a corrupt bureaucracy, why not create a dedicated portal for uploading essential documents like arrest memos and injury reports, all time-stamped and accessible to defense advocates? This portal could also host subsequent documents, such as charge sheets or Section 180 BNSS statements. Furthermore, why can’t release orders be electronically transmitted directly to jail authorities, reducing delays and corruption?

In India’s judicial system, the process itself often serves as punishment, financially draining citizens, harming their well-being, and eroding trust in institutions designed to protect liberty. Judicial reform is not only about efficiency but is a constitutional necessity. Until technology, transparency, and accountability are woven into every stage of the criminal process, justice will remain a distant promise for many.

Bismay Ray is an advocate practicing before the High Court of Orissa and other subordinate courts. The views expressed are personal.