Tanvi Sinha
The Supreme Court brought in the possibility of introducing a new category of District Magistrates who would be assisting the police with their investigation and collection of evidence.
Three judges, Chief Justice of India, Justice L Nageswara Rao, and Justice S Ravindra Bhat spoke of these special magistrates whom they termed “investigative magistrates” to do such tasks.
CJI Bobde spoke in specific criminal cases where the police forget to collect critical evidence like bullets and hair strands which adversely affects the prosecution and opinioned that the presence of a Magistrate in the investigation could help.
The court was hearing a Suo Moto case in time when they had formulated a committee of experts to look into debates concerning criminal trials after Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and R Besant (Amicus Curiae) submitted draft rules on Criminal practice.
However, the two senior advocates on the case did not seem very comfortable with the discussion, Luthra mentioning that the Magistrate might become a witness and would then not be able to hear the case while Besant spoke of this being akin to walking a tightrope.
Besant’s point alluded towards the separation and independence of the Judiciary from the other branches of the government, and how such a thing could violate it.
The CJI did not pass any orders on this but has taken Suo Moto notice of the matter as a separate case and stated that he would issue notice and appoint lawyers as amicus curiae for it.
