Indian illegal bail industry could be 4300 – 8600 Cr

NCRB Crime Data for 2008 are published. They have not put the link in the main page (it still shows 2007).

However, this is the direct link for 2008 data.
http://ncrb.nic.in/cii2008/home.htm

All the Tables are in the following file.

http://ncrb.nic.in/cii2008/Statistics2008.pdf

Page 363:
=========
Number of Males and Females arrested in IPC Crimes
==================================================
27,13,971 male 1,68,315 female

Number of Males and Females arrested in SLL Crimes
==================================================
40,96,743 male 1,59,245 female
Total Number of Males and Females arrested in Both Crimes
==================================================

6810714 male 327560 female
Grand Total of all People Arrested: 71,38,274

Now out of these arrests around 60% are unnecessary or unjustified, according to police commission report.

If an arrest is made, the arrested person has to arrange bail to get out of judicial custody.  So if 60% of these arrests are unnecessary or unjustified, the number of such arrests comes to be 42,82,964, i.e. around 43 lakh unjustified arrests.  Assuming a conservative amount of Rs 10,000 – 20,000 needed to pay a lawyer, bribes etc to secure a bail, the total amount ranges from 4,282 Cr to 8565 Cr which lubricates, or better word is flood, this illegal bail industry.

No wonder there is such hue and cry from lawyer groups against all proposed CrPC amendments aimed at stopping unjustified arrests by police, so much so that they have been successful at stopping the notification of Sec 41 in official gazette.

Brand new, better, faster Dowry Law for you... any takers?

Much news has come out recently about proposed amendments to Dowry Prohibition Act, or DP Act in short.

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article82087.ece

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_all-wedding-gifts-may-now-have-to-be-listed_1335335

My eyes must have widened in amazement, when I read some of the interesting provisions of the new DP act.

e.g. here is the provision which says it is mandatory to maintain list of all gifts exchanged, or go to jail.

The ministry of women and child development (MWCD) is planning to make it mandatory for the families of the bride and the groom to maintain a list of gifts and other exchanges made at the time of marriage. The Dowry Prohibition Act (DPA), 1961, will be amended to provide it with more teeth while plugging loopholes that allow women to misuse the act.

The list, in the form of a sworn affidavit, has to be notarised and signed by a protection officer or a dowry prohibition officer. Both the parties will have a copy of the list. The punishment for lapse is heavy, including a three-year jail term, not only for the bride and the groom but also their parents.

Comments: Right now even all marriages are not registered in India. In many places, you will have to give bribe just to get that marriage certificate. There are many child marriages in rural India, so registration of marriage in such cases is quite impossible, since no one will try to register a marriage, which is illegal to begin with.

Now, even if we were to assume that all the infrastructural issues in registering of marriages could be fixed, and on top of that new infrascturcture could be created by hiring more dowry prohibition officers, buying computers, databases, filing systems, and what not; isn't it slightly over the top to think that things will become hunky dory so easily and dowry problems will be solved?

Has any study been done on why dowry giving/taking has only increased even after propagation of so many anti dowry laws like DP Act, IPC 498a, and so on. Even communities where dowry was not prevalent now are following this custom.

further...

The amendments include lesser penalty for dowry givers; allowing a woman to file a case where she resides permanently or temporarily; including parents and relatives of the bride as aggrieved persons who can complain; and linking the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) with the dowry laws for quick relief.

Comment: It is always amusing to read the words "quick relief" in context of Indian judicial system. By some magic wand of proposals, just by linking PWDVA with DP Act, somehow quick relief will be ensured under DP Act. Never mind that no serious study would have been done on how quick is the relief under PWDVA itself! Make more laws, and you make more money for lawyers if not anything else.

further...

For a change, this amendment has also been welcomed by the men’s organisations. “This saves even the man from getting caught in false dowry cases,” said Virag Dhulia, of Save Indian Family Foundation, an organisation of harassed husbands.

False cases is a different problem than existence or absense of provisions in a particular act. The Indian laws relating to perjury are hardly applied by courts, so it is a free-for-all in terms of allegations that one can make and get away with them.

further...

Among other amendments, the ministry has also proposed a lighter punishment for dowry givers since a five-year imprisonment was acting as a deterrent for the girl’s family to complain. The amendment seeks one-year imprisonment for dowry givers unless they prove that they were compelled. Tulsi agreed that this would encourage more parents to come up and complain.

“Parents are often compelled to pay dowry to ensure the security and happiness of their daughter in her matrimonial home. Hence, the giver and the taker of dowry cannot be placed on the same footing under the law,” the NCW clarified.

Comments: The WCD and NCW seem to be animated by the same spirits that believe that more we tinker with the laws, the better. Crush the dowry takers, but go easy on dowry givers! Further it smacks of the arrogance that laws can do some kind of social engineering and change the society's attitudes. In any case, treating dowry givers and takers differently is like saying -- Let the pimp be let off lightly, but you must punish the prostitute! A paradise for lawmakers.

Even HC Judges confused about PWDVA

Here is a news report which covers many of the points about applicability of PWDVA to women as 'respondents', as defined in Sec 2(q) of the act.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/city/ahmedabad/Women-fight-for-cover-under-DV-act/articleshow/5085082.cms

An excerpt from the news story:

The lower courts and high courts across the country differ on this issue. The Madhya Pradesh HC has held that complaint can be filed and proceedings can be initiated against adult male persons only under DV Act. In one case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has taken similar view that women cannot be made respondents, but in another case a division bench of the same high court took a different stand.

The division bench in AP High Court on June 2 this year concluded that the complainant under DV Act has to be a woman and if she is a wife, the female relatives of husband can be named as respondents. Thus, DV Act does not exclude women completely.

It is interesting that now the topic of discussion has shifted to how some women can only file complaints under PWDVA, and some women can only be at the receiving end of it. At what end of the stick you find yourselves is decided based on your relationship to a man. A woman being wife or even live-in partner entitles her to wield the stick, but any other woman relative of a man should be ever ready for getting beaten by the stick.

As regards the act itself which was deemed as 'clumsy drafting' as per SC judgment in 'Batra vs Batra' case, it surely seems the handiwork of certain lawyers who banded together in the name of women protection. Surely their clumsy and shoddy work can only entitle them to be called as Lawyers Defective, however that is the subject of another post...

Why CrPC 2008 Amendment Act is not in force yet?

With help, I was able to find the technical reasons about how the CrPC 2008 Amendments Act is still not in force.

http://www.voice4india.org/2009/07/13/act-becomes-law-when-notified-in-gazette-of-india/


From above the reasons for delay can be:

This device is resorted to when postponement of the commencement of an Act is necessitated by reason of appointments to be made under the Act, or rules to be framed thereunder and other preliminary arrangements to be carried out for the proper and effective functioning of the Act, or by reason of any change being made by the Act in status or rights the effect of which it is desirable to delay, or by reason of new conditions being imposed on a sectionof the public which makes it desirable, that they should have time to adjust themselves to the new law.

The point to see is that the government has delayed by 6 months already the executive notification of the CrPC amendment act. Is it because of any of above reasons? Is there no reason at all? Isn't it otherwise a waste of precious tax money on legislators spending time to pass a law and then not notify it for execution?

Welcome foreign law firms to India

Foreign law firms? Law firms? What are these creatures? Common people may not care for two seconds why foreign law firms should or should not be allowed to operate in India. Common man wants to stay as far away from lawyers and courts even in his dreams! So public may not have any opinion for or against it.

But the issue may have important ramifications for legal system in India.

First things first, there is no shame in using 'foreign' in India. Many Indians are comfortable with following foreign made or foreign owned goods:
1. Coke & Pepsi are both marquee US companies and present in India.
2. Snacks and food products by Unilever, P&G and other are consumed in India.
3. Many clothing brands are named after 'phoren' sounding names like Allen Solly, Van Heusen, Peter England etc. The interesting thing is that some of these brands are actually owned by Indian companies. So clearly people prefer to buy a brand called 'Peter England' than say 'Subbu Swami'.
4. Foreign owned manufacturing and Industrial companies are operating in India. e.g. GE
5. Foreign owned companies in Telecom space e.g. Vodafone are also present in India.
6. Foreign owned banks like Citibank, HSBC, and service companies like IBM, Accenture are operating in India.
7. Foreign insurance companies have joint ventures with Indian companies.

So why do lawyers as a fraternity oppose entry of foreign law firms. They give 2 broad arguments:
1. Indian firms should also get reciprocal entry into foreign jurisdictions like UK etc.
2. Entry of foreign firms will make legal service expensive for common man and poor people.

The first point is valid but it can be take care of by lobbying at appropriate business forums and with government. If free trade and services are happening in other instances it can be done for legal services too.

The second argument that legal service will become out of reach of common man is totally fallacious. Competition in a market economy is known to reduce prices. Which of the following things have become more expensive and/or less accessible in last 10 years?
1. Mobile phones and services
2. Medical Insurance
3. Financial services (for middle classes and above only)
4. Automobiles - cars (think nano), motorcycles etc
5. Consumer durables - TV, fridge, washing machines
6. None of the above

The right answer is 6. "None of the above". More competition and entry of foreign/joint ventures have improved both cost and quality for common people in India.

The reality of the issue is as follows:
1. Foreign law firms will want access to corporate and global legal services like taxation, merger and acquisition, international trade laws etc. These services are high-end and only few law firms in India provide such services. It does not take away legal jobs except give competition at the top end. Foreign firms are not coming to India to serve the common man, at least not directly.
2. Also let us not forget many Indian KPO firms are providing legal services to foreign firms. That is providing lucrative employment to many legal professionals in India and can be used as valid argument by foreign law firms to claim entry into India.
3. But most importantly, the Indian legal community *does not* provide services to the common man or poor person. The common man is dead afraid to go to a lawyer. Can you really picture a poor man taking out his mobile phone (poor people have mobiles now) and saying "let me speak to my lawyer first"!

The reason is simple. In Indian legal /judicial system, there is so much delay that no sane person goes to courts except in complete desperation and helplessness. The lawyers bred in this system also feed on this helplessness. Because once a person gets trapped he cannot get out so easily. He lives on eternal hope.

A few months back the same lawyers had opposed an amendment in criminal procedure which will make it more difficult for police to arrest a person. Hello lawyers? Do you have any argument to back your claim. Do more arrests lead to more justice in India? The jails are anyway filled with undertrials of many years. Do they get justice because you are there to help them after they get arrested? Do you help their cases to be concluded quickly?

Recently, a few lawyers including a lady lawyer assaulted a judge in a Delhi court when the judge passed an unfavourable order against their client! Also there are many instances in past when lawyers have resorted to vandalism and strikes on flimsy issues.

Obviously lawyers think they are above the law of land. Common people depend on them to get access to courts, but lawyers do not seem to be accountable to anyone including judiciary. Many incompetent lawyers feed on miseries of poor people who get arrested by police and do not have knowledge and access to speedy justice. There may be competent and incompetent people in any profession but the legal system should not encourage incompetence.

So we should support entry of foreign law firms in India. This will achieve the following:
1. Competent Indian lawyers will work in these firms or in legal service firms giving outsourced service to foreign clients. It will encourage good students to take up law as profession.
2. Middle level competent lawyers will have enough opportunity to get legal work once judicial and police reforms are in place. Because when justice is quick and effective, more people will go to courts for reasonable remedies. False and frivolous cases will get thrown out quickly, so the needy people will get speedy access to justice.
3. The incompetent lawyers will have to fend for themselves somehow. They will not be able to exploit poor people due to an unresponsive police and judicial system.