By Lohit Vijayabaskar (2023)
It is the year 1999, and the Indian Railways is flourishing with its usual crowds and aplomb. However, an almost inconspicuous event occurs at the Mathura station where a travel agent overcharges a gentleman named Tungnath Chaturvedi by 25 paise. This might seem like a minor issue, but it plays out to highlight one of the biggest problems in modern Indian society, which happens to be a failing Judicial system. Chaturvedi happens to be a lawyer, and hence, like any other prudent lawyer, he files a case and approaches a local district court in Uttar Pradesh. To any onlooker, this case must look like a simple one where the expected outcome will be that the courts grant compensation to Mr.Chaturvedi and let the agent off with a warning or fine. However, what happens instead shows us why the Indian Judicial system suffers from large-scale inefficiencies, among other problems. In the end, Mr. Chaturvedi fought this case for a total of 23 years, and after 120 hearings, he got his compensation, which is worth Rs 15000, which again was later revised to Rs. 6000 due to an appeal by the Indian Railways in a higher court.
This particular story might seem insignificant, but Mr. Chaturvedi is one among many Indians who have had to cope with a highly inefficient Justice system. The average life expectancy in India is 67.74 years, but we continue to hit new highs in inefficiency, where there are cases that stretch up to 72 years, and 90-year-olds get life sentences. This inefficiency is one among multiple problems that the current judicial system faces, and the article will take a deep dive into a few other problems that have recently been in the limelight.
The Atul Subhash Case
The American author L.E. Modesitt Jr. said, “Never mistake law for justice as justice is an ideal and law is the tool”. This might seem like a simple quote, but this applies to the Indian justice system and especially to the Atul Subhash case, where Atul Subhash, like many other Indians, faced the brunt of a biased and inefficient justice system, especially in the field of family law. Family law, which is dispensed through family courts, has long been a point of contention in India, which saw heightened tension around it due to this particular case.
Subhash, who was a Bengaluru resident, released a video that served as his suicide note, where he took us through the gut-wrenching pain he had suffered all because of a failing judicial system. Apart from the financial burden, Subhash also faced a continued separation from his children despite trying to maintain a cordial relationship with his ex-wife to ensure regular meetings with his children. However, a broken judicial system denied him the same. The reader at this point might have grown frustrated with my continued reference to a failing system, but this whole case boils down to that with special emphasis on Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which has now become Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Section 498A of the IPC, along with multiple other laws like the Domestic Violence Act, has been set up to protect women from harassment and abuse. While these laws are essential and play a very important role in modern Indian society, it is important to note that their misuse can lead to the weaponization of the same. There have been multiple instances where cases have been registered under Section 498A but have been withdrawn once the husband has agreed to pay alimony. This leads to clear misuse and, in turn, erodes public trust in the functioning of family courts and the overall judicial system.
Apart from this, another glaring issue that was brought to the forefront during the Atul Subhash case was the inconsiderate nature of courts towards the socio-economic conditions of people appearing before courts. In Subhash’s case, the court ordered him to pay Rs. 40000 per month as alimony out of his salary of Rs. 84000, and this led him to succumb to financial pressures, which led to him taking his life. This shows us how opaque our current judicial system is and was rightly highlighted by an unnamed Supreme Court lawyer when he said, “There are many Atul Subhashs out there, but not all of them took his drastic step, but they continue to suffer”.
In conclusion, it is important to revitalize the current judicial system to ensure that justice is dispensed in the right sense and the public regains its trust in the judicial system. The only way to restore this faith is to review these existing laws and transform them into tools that will help family courts and the overall judiciary serve as institutions of integrity and empathy.
The RG Kar Case and the Landscape of Rape Laws in India
On 9th August 2024, a woman trainee doctor at R.G Kar Medical College was raped and murdered. This brought the nation to a standstill with continuous coverage and turmoil throughout the nation. However, just like any headline, this particular issue disappeared into the abyss of other headlines, and Indian society is back to square one. India sees a rape every 4 hours and one would expect very strong rape laws to counteract these activities but on the other hand, the rape laws we follow are in fact archaic and non-deterrent.
The rape laws followed by the IPC and now the BNS are based on colonial doctrines like the Hale doctrine of 1735. The fact is that this itself should be laughable, as Hale, who happened to write the doctrine, hated women and was known for his anti-witchcraft trials. India, for all its opposition to the colonial impact, is somewhat backward when it comes to letting go of archaic laws that are derived from colonial establishments. The whole landscape of rape law currently revolves around IPC section 375 and its corresponding sections which include sections 376, 377, and 304.
Section 375 of the IPC legally defines rape as sexual intercourse with a woman, against her will or without her consent, or when her consent is obtained through force, threat, or if she is unable to understand the nature of the act due to unsoundness of mind, intoxication, or the administration of a stupefying substance. While this seems like a perfectly acceptable description, there are a few ambiguities and clear gaps that have been exploited by criminals, and this has led to very low conviction rates.
Firstly, the whole notion of marital rape is not unlawful in India which should come as a huge surprise as laws against marital rape are usually seen as one of the largest deterring factors of rape. These deterrence factors are actually what India needs desperately. As recently as February 12th, 2025, the Chhattisgarh High Court overturned a ruling by a Bastar Session court where Justice Narendra Vyas found the criminal not guilty under various sections. This came after the man was initially accused of sexually assaulting his spouse so severely that she died from physical injuries in 2017. The initial imprisonment term itself was 10 years, which was later overturned to give a not guilty verdict to this man. This not-guilty verdict came after the victim, who succumbed to injuries, came out with a statement saying that this act was non-consensual just before she passed away. This is just one case of a million where the victim is denied justice due to archaic and opaque rape laws.
Now coming to the RG Kar case, the West Bengal government came up with the Aparajita Woman and Child (West Bengal Criminal Laws Amendment) Bill, 2024 post the R.G Kar incident, and this laid out capital punishment as the punishment for heinous activities like rape. While this was a novel approach by the West Bengal government, it is clear that this will not work as if capital punishment were the solution; the Nirbhaya tragedy of 2012 would have been the biggest landmark in lawmaking in India. The events after the Nirbhaya tragedy led to many believe capital punishment was the solution as it would serve as a deterrent to rape, but it has not and the frequency of rape in our country has just increased since then. These novel approaches which try to prevent rape through fear still operate in a judicial system that is very loophole-heavy and opaque and hence such measures won’t work until the justice system is clean and loophole-free at the top.
In conclusion, it is food for thought that we are almost 80 years into independence and we have still not found a deterrent to rape. Meanwhile, the conviction rate of our country stands at a shockingly low figure of 2.56% which is extremely low for a heinous crime like rape. To conclude, it is important to see the severity of such open-ended laws in such sensitive areas, and as an unnamed Supreme Court judge quipped- “Even Gisele Pelicot (who is a remarkable survivor of rape in France who has been all over the news) might not have seen justice served due to the current landscape of rape laws in our country”. These lines show how deep-rooted this problem is, and hence, it is high time that the judicial system undertakes a review of such archaic laws
The Samay Raina Case and the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression
The current ongoing uproar against Samay Raina and Ranveer Allahbadia after Ranveer’s comments on Samay Raina’s show- India’s Got Latent has put into the spotlight a certain grey area of the Indian Judicial system which happens to be the interpretation of Article 19(1) and Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution which deals with the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression.
Article 19(1) of the Constitution grants freedoms when it comes to speech and expression, while Article 19(2) places restrictions on the same for special cases like national security and decency and morality. The articles are also seen as providing sufficient protection to comedians and content creators through precedential rulings of the past in various courts of law. However, despite these safeguards, there is an ambiguity in these articles that comes up due to the morality argument of these laws. The moral outrage that certain expressions attract plays a significant role in shaping public perception and hence is also considered in the dispensation of justice under these articles.
In this particular case, when it is taken on a Prima Facie (on first impression) legal basis, it is seen that there is no clear violation of any particular law, but rather the moral outrage that it created leads to it becoming a court case under Article 19(2). Hence, public perception becomes a huge determinant of whether something is acceptable or not, and hence leaves huge gaps in the judicial system. The writer of this article is not here to comment on the correctness of Ranveer’s statements but rather to analyze how a twisted judicial system has led to decay in the notions of free speech in India.
This morality aspect, which comes under Article 19(2), has been misused on multiple occasions by multiple authorities, including the Indian government. The whole morality aspect of Article 19(2) is what has shaped multiple laws like the UAPA and the new Information Technology Act. This has given the central government immense power to curb free speech when it wants to. While some of them might be valid cases of restriction due to threats to national security, there is no safeguard against misuse of the same. In this year alone, reports state that around 134 people were falsely accused of misusing Free Speech, and this again comes under the ambit of the UAPA and the new IT Act. Apart from this, the IT Act has also given power to the Indian government to conduct arbitrary raids on even news channels and social media platforms, and one glaring example of this was the raid conducted on Twitter offices in 2021.
In conclusion, the Samay Raina case has again been mischaracterized, and Indian society is concentrating on the wrong aspects of this particular case. While all of us might have our opinions on whether the statements of the show were right or wrong, it is important to be unanimous in our opposition to curbing free speech and it is important to note that Indian society is slipping into a vicious cycle of free speech becoming a notion associated with activists rather than the general public. Hence, it is important to open our eyes immediately to these issues and be active citizens when it comes to understanding such important issues.
To conclude this article, it is important to note that opinions and political notions might vary from person to person, but it is high time for the citizens of this country to realize that a foolproof judicial system is the only way all opinions are accommodated. If the judicial system loses its relevance as a neutral tool to dispense justice, it will lead to large-scale politicization, and hence it is high time that we, as the general members of society, take notice.
The Journal Club 
Leave a comment