Justice Malimath Committee Report - Educational Resource

Justice Malimath Committee Report

Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System (2003)

This resource is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Overview of the Malimath Committee

What is the Malimath Committee?

The Malimath Committee, officially known as the Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, was established in 2000 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to comprehensively review and reform India's criminal justice system.

Committee Composition

Chairman: Justice V.S. Malimath (Former Chief Justice of Karnataka and Kerala High Courts)
Members:
- S. Vardachary (Retd. IPS, Former DGP Rajasthan)
- Prof. Dr. N.R. Madhava Menon (Vice-Chancellor, West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences)
- D.V. Subba Rao (Advocate, Chairman, Bar Council of India)
- Durgadas Gupta (Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs - Member Secretary)

Timeline

Constituted: November 24, 2000
Report Submitted: March/April 2003
Submitted To: L.K. Advani (Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister)
Total Recommendations: 158
Report Size: Two volumes, over 600 pages

Background & Formation

Why Was the Committee Formed?

The criminal justice system in India was facing severe challenges:

Low Conviction Rate: Conviction rate had dropped to 39.6%, indicating systemic failures
Massive Pendency: Millions of cases pending in courts causing delays spanning years
Victim Neglect: The system was perceived as favoring the accused over victims
Investigation Deficiencies: Poor quality of police investigation and evidence collection
Witness Intimidation: No effective witness protection mechanism
Public Distrust: Loss of public confidence in the justice system

Terms of Reference

The Committee was tasked to:

Review the fundamental principles of criminal law enshrined in the Constitution
Examine the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973
Review the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Analyze the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Address delays and arrears in criminal cases
Improve coordination between police, prosecution, and judiciary
Restore public confidence in the criminal justice system

Key Recommendations (158 Total)

1. Adoption of Inquisitorial Elements

Proposal: Incorporate elements from the inquisitorial system (used in Germany and France)
Current System: India follows the adversarial system (inherited from British colonial rule)
Suggested Change: Judicial magistrate to oversee investigations to ensure truth-seeking
Objective: Enhance truth discovery and reduce adversarial "winning at any cost" mentality

2. Right to Silence & Burden of Proof

Controversial Recommendation: Modify the right to silence of the accused
Current Law: Accused cannot be compelled to testify (Article 20(3) of Constitution)
Proposed Change: Court may draw adverse inference from accused's silence
Burden of Proof: Suggested lowering the burden on prosecution in certain circumstances
Criticism: Violates fundamental rights and international human rights standards (ICCPR)

3. Police Confessions as Evidence

Current Law: Confessions made to police are inadmissible (Section 25, Evidence Act)
Proposed Change: Allow confessions to police officers of rank Deputy Superintendent and above
Safeguards Suggested: Video recording, presence of lawyer, judicial oversight
Concern: High risk of coercion, torture, and false confessions

4. Police Custody Extension

Current Provision: Police custody limited to 15 days (Section 167, CrPC)
Recommendation: Extend to 30 days for serious crimes
Charge Sheet Filing: Increase time limit from 90 days to 180 days for complex cases
Rationale: Give more time for thorough investigation

5. Victim Compensation & Rights

Recognition: Strengthen victims' rights in criminal justice system
Compensation Fund: Establish statutory victim compensation scheme
Funding Sources: Fines, confiscated assets, public contributions
Victim Participation: Greater involvement in trial process
Impact: This was one of the most positively received recommendations

6. Witness Protection

Problem: Witnesses turning hostile due to intimidation and threats
Recommendation: Establish comprehensive witness protection program
Model: Similar to witness protection in the United States
Facilities: Proper seating, immediate allowances, security measures
Implementation Status: Largely unimplemented despite repeated judicial directions

7. Forensic Science & Scientific Investigation

Emphasis: Greater use of scientific methods in investigation
DNA Profiling: Mandatory use of DNA testing in relevant cases
Infrastructure: Strengthen forensic laboratories nationwide
Expert Appointment: At least one forensic expert per district
Training: Specialized training for investigating officers

8. Prosecution Reforms

Separation: Hive off investigation wing from law and order
Directorate of Prosecution: Establish independent prosecution service
Training: Specialized training for prosecutors
Coordination: Better liaison between police and prosecution

9. Judicial Reforms

Specialized Courts: Criminal divisions with judges specializing in criminal law
Summary Trials: Cases with punishment up to 3 years to be tried summarily
Court Vacations: Reduce vacation period by 21 days
Case Management: No case should linger beyond 2 years
Alternative Dispute Resolution: Mandatory referral to mediation/conciliation after framing issues

10. Sentencing Guidelines

Committee Proposal: Establish permanent statutory committee for sentencing guidelines
Economic Offences: Sentences to run consecutively rather than concurrently
Alternatives: Home arrest for female prisoners with children
Consistency: Ensure uniformity in sentencing across courts

11. Controversial Social Recommendations

Bigamy: Proposed decriminalization (highly controversial)
Section 497 IPC: Make women punishable for adultery (later struck down as unconstitutional)
Section 498A IPC: Make domestic violence cases bailable and compoundable (heavily criticized)
Rape Definition: Expand to include non-penile penetration and forcible penetration

12. Security Commissions

National Level: Establish National Security Commission
State Level: State Security Commissions for police accountability
Purpose: Insulate police from political interference
Functions: Oversight, posting, transfers, and grievance redressal

Examples & Illustrations

Example 1: Adversarial vs. Inquisitorial System

Scenario: A person is accused of theft.

Adversarial System (Current in India):

Prosecution presents evidence to prove guilt
Defense challenges and presents counter-evidence
Judge acts as neutral umpire
Accused has right to remain silent
Focus: Winning the case for respective sides

Inquisitorial System (Proposed Element):

Judge actively investigates to discover truth
Judicial magistrate oversees investigation
Less emphasis on confrontation
Court can call witnesses and order investigations
Focus: Discovering the objective truth

Example 2: Victim Compensation Scheme

Case Study: A victim of violent crime (assault causing permanent disability)

Before Malimath Recommendations:

No statutory right to compensation
Victim must file separate civil suit
Long delays in getting compensation
Criminal court focused only on punishment of accused

After Implementation (Recommended):

Automatic consideration of compensation
Funded through confiscated assets, fines, public contributions
Quick disbursal mechanism
Compensation awarded during criminal trial itself

Impact: Section 357A was added to CrPC in 2009 establishing victim compensation schemes in all states.

Example 3: Witness Protection

Problem Scenario: Key eyewitness in a murder case

Without Protection:

Witness receives threats from accused's associates
Family members harassed
Witness turns hostile in court
Accused acquitted despite strong evidence
Justice system fails

With Malimath's Proposed Protection:

Police protection to witness and family
Witness relocation if necessary
Identity concealment measures
Immediate payment of witness allowance
Dignified treatment and proper facilities
Stronger testimony, better conviction rates

Example 4: Police Custody Extension

Complex Financial Fraud Case:

Current Limitation (15 days custody):

Multi-crore financial fraud with international transactions
Multiple shell companies involved
Evidence scattered across countries
15 days insufficient for thorough investigation
Accused released, evidence gathering hampered

Malimath Proposal (30 days for serious crimes):

Extended time for detailed interrogation
Opportunity to trace money trails
Coordinate with international agencies
Recover crucial evidence

Concern: Risk of custodial torture and human rights violations increases with longer detention.

Important Case Laws

Case Law 1: National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat (2003)

Citation:

T.P. (Crl.) Nos. 194-202/2003

Court:

Supreme Court of India

Bench:

Justice S.B. Sinha
Justice Arun Kumar

Facts:

Special Leave Petition filed against acquittal in Best Bakery Case (Gujarat riots 2002)
Witnesses turned hostile leading to acquittals
Allegations of witness intimidation and threats
Systemic failures in investigation and prosecution

Issues:

Whether systemic failures warrant judicial intervention?
Whether witness protection measures are mandatory?
Whether Malimath Committee recommendations should be implemented?

Court's Observations:

"Criminal justice delivery system is not in sound health"
Noted low conviction rate of 39.6%
Identified multiple faults: poor FIR recording, faulty investigation, lack of scientific methods
Specifically mentioned Malimath Committee Report
Noted that despite comprehensive recommendations, witness protection remained unimplemented
Observed that "criminals have often access to the police and influential people"

Directions Given:

Matter converted to Public Interest Litigation under Article 32
Notices issued to State of Gujarat and Union of India
State directed to file counter-affidavit on witness protection measures
Union directed to file affidavit on implementation of Malimath recommendations
Gujarat ordered to provide full protection to witnesses in 9 specific cases related to 2002 violence

Significance:

First major Supreme Court recognition of Malimath Committee's importance
Judicial pressure on government to implement witness protection
Acknowledged systemic failures in criminal justice system
Set precedent for treating criminal cases as PIL for larger public interest

Quote from Judgment:

"Justice Malimath Committee has since submitted its report. The recommendations of the said Committee, however, are yet to be implemented. No law has yet been enacted, not even a scheme has been framed by the Union of India or by the State Government for giving protection to the witnesses."

Case Law 2: State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai (2014)

Citation:

Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1485 of 2008

Date of Judgment: January 7, 2014

Court:

Supreme Court of India

Bench:

Justice J.S. Khehar
Justice C.K. Prasad

Facts:

Accused Kishanbhai (19 years) allegedly kidnapped 6-year-old girl Gomi
Charged with rape, murder, and theft (anklets)
Trial Court convicted and sentenced to death
High Court acquitted giving benefit of doubt
State of Gujarat appealed to Supreme Court

Charges:

Section 363 IPC - Kidnapping
Section 376 IPC - Rape
Section 302 IPC - Murder
Section 394 IPC - Robbery with hurt
Section 201 IPC - Destruction of evidence

Investigation Failures:

Post-Mortem Discrepancies: Injuries on genitals were post-mortem, making rape impossible
No Medical Examination: Accused not medically examined within 24 hours
No Forensic Evidence: No semen/blood stains found on accused despite allegations
Informal Custody: Accused held informally before formal arrest
FIR Delay: FIR filed late after inquest panchnama
Weapon Not Recovered: Despite disclosure, weapon not properly traced
Scientific Methods Not Used: No DNA profiling, fingerprinting, or modern techniques

Supreme Court's Strong Observations:

"A heartless, merciless criminal, who has committed an extremely heinous crime, has gone scot-free"
"Investigating officers had miserably failed in discharging their duties"
"Every acquittal should be understood as a failure of the justice delivery system"
"Every acquittal should ordinarily lead to the inference, that an innocent person was wrongfully prosecuted"
Regretted that victim's family suffered due to "evident blunder in investigation"

Reference to Malimath Committee:

The Court specifically invoked Malimath Committee's emphasis on:

"Successful prosecution depends on thorough and careful search for truth"
Need for scientific investigation methods
Importance of collecting admissible and probative evidence
Professional and competent investigation as foundation of justice

Decision:

Supreme Court upheld High Court's acquittal
Too many investigation lapses to sustain conviction
Benefit of doubt given to accused
However, Court expressed deep anguish at failure of justice

Directions for Future Cases:

Investigation officers must be held accountable for lapses
Use of modern scientific methods (DNA profiling) mandatory
Medical examination of accused in sexual assault cases within 24 hours
Proper coordination between investigation and prosecution
Higher standards of evidence collection and preservation

Significance:

Highlighted continuing failures despite Malimath recommendations
Emphasized need for scientific investigation methods
Called for accountability of investigating officers
Demonstrated real consequences of poor investigation
Reinforced importance of implementing Malimath's forensic science recommendations

Key Quote:

"He may be truly innocent, or he may have succeeded because of the lapses committed by the investigating/prosecuting teams. If he has escaped, despite being guilty, the investigating and the prosecution agencies must be deemed to have seriously messed it all up."

Other Relevant Cases:

Zahira Habibulla Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004): Best Bakery case retrial ordered; witness protection emphasized
Sudhir Vasant Karnataki v. State of Maharashtra (2010): Referenced Malimath recommendations on Section 102 CrPC amendments
Shrikant Prasad v. Union of India: PIL seeking implementation of Malimath's forensic science recommendations

Flowchart: Malimath Committee Process & Impact

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
• Low conviction rate (39.6%)
• Massive case pendency
• Public distrust in system
• Poor investigation quality

↓

COMMITTEE FORMATION
November 2000
Ministry of Home Affairs
Chaired by Justice V.S. Malimath

↓

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW
• Constitution provisions
• CrPC, IPC, Evidence Act
• International systems
• Stakeholder consultations

↓

REPORT SUBMISSION
March 2003
2 Volumes, 600+ pages
158 Recommendations
To Deputy PM L.K. Advani

↓

POSITIVE ASPECTS
• Victim compensation
• Witness protection
• Forensic science
• Court management
• ADR mechanisms

CONTROVERSIAL ASPECTS
• Police confessions
• Right to silence
• Extended custody
• Burden of proof shift
• Social law changes

↓

STAKEHOLDER REACTIONS
• Human Rights Groups: Criticized
• Law Commission: Opposed some proposals
• Judiciary: Partially supported
• Government: Selective acceptance

↓

IMPLEMENTED
✓ Victim Compensation (Sec 357A CrPC)
✓ Directorate of Prosecution
✓ Mediation/ADR (Sec 89 CPC)
✓ Some forensic improvements
✓ Court vacation reduction

NOT IMPLEMENTED
✗ Police confessions
✗ Inquisitorial elements
✗ Right to silence changes
✗ Witness protection law
✗ Most radical reforms

↓

JUDICIAL RECOGNITION
• NHRC v. Gujarat (2003)
• State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai (2014)
• Multiple SC/HC references
• Pressure for implementation

↓

CURRENT STATUS (2025)
• Partial implementation
• Ongoing debates
• Influenced subsequent reforms
• Blueprint for future changes
• Legacy continues

Comparative Analysis

Table 1: Before vs. After Malimath Recommendations

Aspect	Before Malimath (Pre-2003)	Malimath Recommendation	Current Status (2025)
Victim Rights	No statutory compensation scheme; victims neglected	Establish victim compensation fund; strengthen victim participation	Section 357A CrPC added (2009); schemes in all states
Witness Protection	No protection mechanism; witnesses often intimidated	Comprehensive witness protection program with security	Still largely unimplemented; no central law
Police Custody	Maximum 15 days under Section 167 CrPC	Extend to 30 days for serious crimes	Remains 15 days; not changed
Police Confessions	Inadmissible under Section 25, Evidence Act	Allow confessions to senior officers with safeguards	Remains inadmissible; not changed
Forensic Science	Limited use; inadequate infrastructure	Mandatory scientific methods; strengthen labs	Gradual improvement; still inadequate
Prosecution	Part of police system; poor coordination	Independent Directorate of Prosecution	Implemented in most states
Right to Silence	Absolute right under Article 20(3)	Allow adverse inference from silence	Unchanged; remains absolute right
Court Vacations	Long vacation periods contributing to delays	Reduce by 21 days	Partially reduced in some courts
ADR Mechanisms	Limited use in criminal cases	Mandatory referral to mediation after framing issues	Section 89 CPC for civil; limited criminal use
Charge Sheet Filing	90 days for serious crimes	Extend to 180 days for complex cases	Remains 90 days; not changed

Table 2: Adversarial vs. Inquisitorial Systems

Feature	Adversarial System (India)	Inquisitorial System (Germany/France)	Malimath's Mixed Approach
Judge's Role	Passive umpire between parties	Active investigator seeking truth	Enhanced judicial oversight of investigation
Investigation	Police conduct independently	Judicial magistrate supervises investigation	Judicial monitoring with police execution
Evidence Presentation	Parties present evidence; adversarial	Court investigates and collects evidence	Court can direct additional investigation
Accused's Role	Right to remain silent; presumption of innocence	May be questioned; cooperative approach	Modified right to silence with adverse inference
Focus	Winning the case for respective sides	Discovering objective truth	Balance between rights and truth-seeking
Burden of Proof	Entirely on prosecution; beyond reasonable doubt	Judge evaluates all evidence; lower standard in some cases	Modified burden in specific circumstances
Legal Tradition	Common Law (British origin)	Civil Law (Continental European)	Hybrid model borrowing strengths

Table 3: Implementation Status of Key Recommendations

Recommendation	Status	Reason for Status	Impact
Victim Compensation Scheme	Implemented	Section 357A added to CrPC in 2009	Positive - Victims receiving compensation in many states
Directorate of Prosecution	Partially Implemented	Most states established separate prosecution departments	Moderate - Improved coordination but challenges remain
Witness Protection Law	Not Implemented	No central legislation despite repeated judicial directions	Negative - Witnesses continue to turn hostile
Police Confessions	Rejected	Concerns about torture and human rights violations	Neutral - Protects accused rights
Inquisitorial Elements	Rejected	Constitutional and systemic incompatibility	Neutral - System remains adversarial
Forensic Science Enhancement	Partially Implemented	Some improvement in infrastructure but still inadequate	Moderate - Better investigation in some cases
Court Vacation Reduction	Partially Implemented	Some courts reduced vacations; not uniform	Minor - Small improvement in case disposal
Right to Silence Modification	Rejected	Violates Article 20(3) and international obligations	Neutral - Constitutional protection maintained
Mediation/ADR in Criminal Cases	Partially Implemented	Section 89 CPC for civil; limited criminal application	Moderate - Used in compoundable offences
Summary Trials Expansion	Partially Implemented	Some procedural changes made	Minor - Limited impact on pendency

Legend:

Implemented - Fully adopted through legislation or policy

Partially Implemented - Adopted with modifications or limited scope

Not Implemented - No action taken despite recommendations

Rejected - Explicitly not adopted due to concerns

Criticisms & Concerns

1. Human Rights Concerns

Amnesty International and human rights organizations raised serious concerns:

Right Against Self-Incrimination: Modifications to right to silence violate Article 20(3) of Constitution
International Obligations: Proposals conflict with International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Presumption of Innocence: Shifting burden of proof undermines fundamental principle
Custodial Torture Risk: Extended police custody increases risk of torture and coercion
Police Confession Dangers: High likelihood of forced confessions without adequate safeguards

2. Constitutional Validity Questions

Article 20(3): Right against self-incrimination is a fundamental right
Article 14: Equal protection - Some proposals may create discriminatory treatment
Article 21: Right to life and liberty - Extended custody threatens personal liberty
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India: Committee ignored post-1978 constitutional developments

3. Gender Justice Concerns

Section 498A Recommendations: Making domestic violence bailable and compoundable criticized as regressive
Bigamy Decriminalization: Seen as undermining women's rights
Section 497 (Adultery): Proposal to punish women struck down as unconstitutional in Joseph Shine v. UOI (2018)
No Women Members: Committee had no female representation despite gender-sensitive issues

4. Law Commission's Opposition

Law Commission publicly protested misrepresentation of its positions
Opposed lowering of evidence standards
Criticized burden of proof shift proposals
Highlighted incompatibility with established jurisprudence

5. Systemic Concerns

Security Over Justice: Report prioritized security concerns over justice and rights
Terrorism Focus: Excessive emphasis on terrorism and organized crime
POTA Mainstreaming: Attempted to mainstream draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act provisions
Political Interference: Insufficient safeguards against police and political manipulation

6. Implementation Challenges

Resource Intensive: Many recommendations require massive financial investment
Infrastructure Gaps: Forensic labs, witness protection programs need extensive infrastructure
Training Required: Judges, police, prosecutors need specialized training
Political Will: Lack of sustained political commitment to reforms

7. Methodological Criticisms

Limited Consultation: Insufficient engagement with academics and civil society
Lack of Empirical Data: Limited statistical analysis to support proposals
Ignored Marginalized Groups: Did not address access to justice for disadvantaged communities
Anglophile Approach: Over-reliance on Western models without sufficient Indian scholarship

Positive Aspects Despite Criticisms

Victim Focus: First major committee to prioritize victims' rights
Comprehensive Scope: Holistic review of entire criminal justice system
Scientific Investigation: Strong emphasis on forensic science
Witness Protection: Highlighted critical need for witness safeguards
Dialogue Starter: Created important national debate on reforms

Questions & Answers

Click on each question to reveal the answer

Answer: The primary objective was to comprehensively review India's criminal justice system and propose reforms to:

Restore public confidence in the criminal justice system
Improve conviction rates which had dropped to 39.6%
Reduce massive pendency of criminal cases
Balance the rights of accused with victims' interests
Enhance efficiency of investigation, trial, and sentencing
Address systemic failures causing delays and low conviction rates

Answer: The Malimath Committee made 158 recommendations in its comprehensive report submitted in 2003. These recommendations covered various aspects including:

Investigation procedures
Trial processes
Sentencing guidelines
Victim compensation
Witness protection
Forensic science
Court management
Police reforms
Prosecution reforms
Judicial reforms

Answer:

Adversarial System (India):

Two parties present their cases before a neutral judge
Judge acts as passive umpire
Prosecution must prove guilt; accused can remain silent
Focus on winning the case
Common law tradition (British origin)

Inquisitorial System (Germany/France):

Judge actively investigates to discover truth
Judicial magistrate supervises investigation
Less adversarial confrontation
Focus on finding objective truth
Civil law tradition (Continental European)

Malimath proposed borrowing elements from inquisitorial system while retaining adversarial framework.

Answer: The most controversial recommendations were:

1. Admissibility of Police Confessions:

Currently inadmissible under Section 25, Evidence Act
Malimath proposed allowing confessions to senior police officers
Concerns: Risk of torture, coercion, and false confessions
Status: Rejected - not implemented

2. Modification of Right to Silence:

Proposed allowing adverse inference from accused's silence
Violates Article 20(3) - right against self-incrimination
Criticized by human rights organizations as unconstitutional
Status: Rejected - not implemented

3. Shifting Burden of Proof:

Proposed lowering prosecution's burden in certain cases
Undermines presumption of innocence
Status: Rejected - not implemented

Answer: No, witness protection has NOT been fully implemented despite being one of the most important recommendations.

Current Status:

No comprehensive central legislation on witness protection
Supreme Court has repeatedly directed implementation (NHRC v. Gujarat, 2003)
Some states have ad-hoc schemes but no uniform national program
Witnesses continue to turn hostile due to intimidation
This remains a major failure of criminal justice reforms

Consequences of Non-Implementation:

High rate of hostile witnesses
Acquittals in serious crimes
Loss of public confidence
Victims and witnesses feel unsafe

Answer: Section 357A CrPC was added in 2009 as a direct result of Malimath Committee's recommendation on victim compensation.

Provisions of Section 357A:

Mandates every State Government to establish Victim Compensation Scheme
Provides compensation to victims or their dependents
Covers victims who suffered loss or injury as a result of crime
Compensation also available if no conviction occurs
District Legal Services Authority or State Legal Services Authority implements schemes

Significance:

First major recognition of victims' rights in criminal justice system
One of the successfully implemented Malimath recommendations
Changed focus from purely punitive to restorative justice
Provides financial support to crime victims

Answer: Organizations like Amnesty International raised several serious concerns:

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights:

Proposals conflict with Article 20(3) - right against self-incrimination
Undermine presumption of innocence
Threaten Article 21 - right to life and personal liberty

2. International Human Rights Violations:

Non-compliance with International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Ignored international standards for fair trial
Proposals would violate customary international law

3. Risk of Abuse:

Extended police custody increases torture risk
Police confessions likely to be coerced
Insufficient safeguards against abuse

4. Security Over Justice:

Report prioritized security concerns over justice
Attempted to mainstream draconian anti-terror law provisions
Failed to address systemic discrimination and marginalization

Answer: This 2014 Supreme Court case highlighted the urgent need for Malimath Committee's recommendations on scientific investigation.

Case Facts:

Accused charged with rape and murder of 6-year-old girl
Trial court convicted and sentenced to death
High Court acquitted due to investigation failures

Investigation Failures Identified:

No medical examination of accused despite sexual assault allegations
No forensic evidence collected (DNA, fingerprints)
Post-mortem inconsistencies ignored
Procedural irregularities in custody and arrest
Scientific methods not employed

Supreme Court's Strong Observations:

"A heartless criminal has gone scot-free"
"Investigating officers miserably failed in their duties"
"Every acquittal is a failure of justice delivery system"
Specifically referenced Malimath Committee's emphasis on scientific investigation

Significance:

Demonstrated real-world consequences of ignoring Malimath recommendations
Called for accountability of investigating officers
Emphasized need for mandatory forensic science use
Showed gap between recommendations (2003) and implementation (2014)

Answer: While progress has been made, implementation remains inadequate:

Improvements:

Some new forensic science laboratories established
DNA profiling more commonly used in serious cases
Better equipment in central forensic labs
Some specialized training programs for police
Digital forensics capabilities enhanced

Continuing Challenges:

Only 6-7 central forensic laboratories for entire country
Most district police stations lack forensic experts
Severe shortage of trained forensic personnel
Equipment and infrastructure inadequate
Long delays in forensic report processing
Many investigations still rely on traditional methods

PIL Filed (2022):

Shrikant Prasad v. Union of India - seeking implementation
Demands appointment of forensic experts in every district
Requests strengthening of forensic infrastructure
Status: Pending before Supreme Court

Answer: The Malimath Committee's legacy is mixed but significant:

Positive Legacy:

National Debate: Created comprehensive discussion on criminal justice reforms
Victim Focus: First major shift towards victim-centric justice
Partial Implementation: Key recommendations like victim compensation successfully implemented
Blueprint for Future: Influenced subsequent reform committees and proposals
Judicial Recognition: Supreme Court frequently references the report
Awareness Creation: Highlighted systemic failures and need for reforms

Limitations:

Selective Implementation: Most radical reforms not adopted
Human Rights Concerns: Controversial proposals rejected as unconstitutional
Incomplete Impact: Many core issues (witness protection, investigation quality) remain unaddressed
Political Will Lacking: Insufficient government commitment to comprehensive implementation

Current Relevance (2025):

Continues to be cited in judicial pronouncements
Reference point for ongoing criminal law reforms
Influenced drafting of new criminal laws (BNS, BNSS, BSA 2023)
Remains relevant blueprint despite being over 20 years old

Overall Assessment: A comprehensive and ambitious attempt at criminal justice reform that succeeded in changing the discourse even if full implementation proved elusive. Its emphasis on victims' rights, scientific investigation, and systemic reforms continues to influence Indian criminal jurisprudence.