CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

Freedom is of paramount importance in our socio-economic and political set-up. Article 21 of

the Indian Constitution enumerates that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal
liberty except in accordance with procedures established by law. A person's personal freedom
may therefore be protected by the procedures established by law. The Criminal Procedure
Code of 1973, laid down the rules and procedure in this context. This law allows for the
restriction of freedom of anti-state and anti-social elements. Certain restrictions are imposed
by Article 22 of our constitution on the state authorities when a person accused of committing
a crime against society or the state is arrested. In lower Court cases involving one or more
crimes, a Court is usually required to decide whether to release a person on bail or imprison
him. Such judgments must be made primarily in the non-bailable cases, taking into account
the severity of the crime, the conditions in which the crime was committed, the socio-
economic milieu of the defendant, the likelihood of early bail, and the influence of his release
on the society, witnesses to accusations, social influence, possible reprisals, as well as many
other factors are considered in this process.cclxii

The objective of Article 21 is to protect the infringement of individual liberties by the

executive branch, except in accordance with the law and its provisions. Therefore, it is
pertinent to mention that before a person is deprived of his life and personal liberty, the
procedure established by law is to be followed and not deviated to the detriment of those
involved. When a person claims deprivation of his life or personal liberty, the Court must
exercise its legal authority and constitutional power of judicial review to determine whether
there is a legal procedure authorizing such deprivation. If so, the procedure prescribed in the
particular case such law shall be impartial, just, reasonable and not arbitrary, capricious, or
fancy. An ordinary interpretation of the words "life and liberty" given in Article 21 makes
this article as an almost surviving right to a degree the founders of the Constitution never
dreamed of.cclxiii

Individual liberties are precious, and Courts should always do their best to protect individual
liberties, but the term protection itself is not defined, so such protection is only available to
those who deserve it. Provided it is absolute in any situation, but qualified according to the
urgency of the circumstances. From this point of view, it is society as a whole that needs to
be protected from those elements who commits heinous crimes. Because the latter have the
ability to spread a reign of terror that interferes with the lives and tranquility of those in
society. Protection must therefore be granted with due diligence, depending on the
circumstances.cclxiv

Indeed, the personal liberties enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution include all the
freedoms guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) to (9). However, this is subject to reasonable
limitations and due process of law or procedures established by law. It means that it is
protected by the law of the land. There does not exist an absolute freedom in the sense of
freedom from arrest under due process of law. Clauses restricting individual liberties should
be construed strictly in favour of their subjects, and safeguards provided to protect civil
liberties should be freely construed and applied. Certainly, the defendant's right to individual
freedom is important, but when a clash arises between the defendant's right to personal liberty
and the interests of public justice and social welfare goals, the former is subordinate to the
latter.cclxv Civil liberties are undoubtedly important, but critical issues must be balanced
against the safety of our communities.cclxvi There is no denying that civil liberties should be
respected to the utmost in all circumstances. Civil liberties can only be denied for very good
reasons and in the interest of the natural justice and provisions regarding bail given in the
Criminal Procedure Code. Needless to say, it is framed to obtain the objectives mentioned
above.cclxvii

The law assumes that defendants are innocent until proven guilty. A person assumed an
innocent, is entitled to all the fundamental rights that our Constitution guarantees to citizens.
He or she shall not be deprived of life or personal liberty since individual liberty is precious,
and Courts must be diligent in protecting it from attack from all sides. Subtle interference
with this valuable right under the guise of statutory powers or procedures must be carefully
monitored and prevented if such interference is found not to strictly follow procedures
established by law. Deprivation of an individual's liberty by pretrial detention before guilt is
proven is not recognized as a possible means and test of criminal procedure law. Deprivation
of an individual's liberty is not only complete deprivation, but partial deprivation is also
deprivation. Restriction of an individual's liberty, on the one hand, constitutes complete
deprivation of liberty, but only on the other hand, only in according to the procedures
established by law.cclxviii But the presumption of innocence cannot be considered sole relevant
condition for granting bail. Bail may be denied if the investigation is obstructed, evidence is
tampered with, or the defendant flee from Court. A useful rule is to balance the defendant's
case with that of the trial. Overprotective treatment to the freedom of accused criminals can
undermine public justice. There seems to be some sense that the purpose of criminal law is to
protect the rights of the accused, and that the criminal justice system is seen as the guardian
of the rights of the accused. The law is the protector of social and individual rights. The rights
of accused criminals are upheld as zealously as social justice. Pre-trial detention itself is
neither evil nor contrary to the basic presumption of innocence. Ensuring law and order are
acceptable, impunity goals that can be achieved through pre-trial detention. If overwhelming
considerations of the above nature require the refusal of bail, it must be denied. cclxix Bail
therefore plays a pertinent role in protecting individual freedom.

Bail's primary purpose is to allow the defendant to return to trial if released after arrest. In
Rajasthan v. Balchand,cclxx the Apex Court ruled that it was common policy to allow rather
than deny bail. The Supreme Court held that the seriousness of the offence in question, in
which the defendant is likely to face trial, should also be considered when taking into account
the issue of bail, and the severity of the offense must be considered. The Supreme Court ruled
in many cases that bail cannot be refused as a punitive measure. The Court's jurisdiction to
grant bail is not used as if a judgment had been rendered before trial. As already stated, the
Constitution places greater emphasis on the fundamental liberties of citizens. Therefore, a
balance must be struck between personal liberty and the general cause. All of the above
issues have been analysed at length in the 1st Chapter of the present study.

For bail approval, criminal offenses according to the legal arrangement have been divided
into bail and non-bail offences. The fundamental difference between these crimes is that for
bailable crimes, bail is right, while for non-bailable crimes, the Court has discretion as to
whether or not to grant bail. There are several factors a Court should consider when request
for bail is not treated as eligible for grant of bail. The field of human rights is broadening in
the contemporary world. Besides, there is a significant increase in the crime rate throughout
the world. In view of this, the Supreme Court said there was an urgent requirement to strike a
balance between individual liberties and police investigative authority. It makes no sense to
say that individual liberty must be replaced by national security. However, no right is
absolute and may be subject to reasonable limitations.

Section 437 Criminal Procedure Code clarifies that if a person is charged with an offense and
arrested under bailable warrant and he/she also agrees to provide a bond, he/she shall be
granted a bail. These regulations are mandatory and the Courts have no discretion over it.
Subject to Section 437 of Criminal Procedure Code to be granted bail for a bailable crime, the
following conditions must be met:
1. The person is accused of a bailable criminal offence.

2. The person was either detained or arrested without issuing a proper warrant by senior
police officer or brought to trial.

3. The person agrees to post bail at any time and is detained by an officer or agrees to do so at
any stage of this process before the Court.

For example, for bailable crimes, bail is the rule and denial an exception. Giving bail to
persons accused of non-bailable crimes is voluntary, but Courts can impose bail conditions.
Moreover, such conditions should not be much strict and harsh. The Supreme Court of India
in Rajasthan v. Bal Chandcclxxi case has ruled that the fundamental rule is bail, not jail.
Unless there are circumstances suggesting that it is frustrating or causing other problems such
as recidivism or intimidation of witnesses. Based on decisions of various Courts, the
following principles of granting or denying bail under Section 437 Criminal Procedure Code.
Its summaries as follows;

1) Bail must not be denied unless the crimes alleged are of severe nature and the penalties
provided by law are very severe.

2) Bail should be denied if the Court can reasonably determine that there is evidence to
justify the lack of bail of an amount to ensure the convict's presence at the sentencing stage.

3) For time being, bail can be rejected in case the legal proceedings are barred by a person
seeking to release the Court's bona fide jurisdiction.

4) Bail should be denied if the defendant is likely to obstruct prosecution witnesses or

obstruct legal proceedings.

5) Bail should be denied if a man seeking bail has a bad record, especially one that suggests
he/she is likely to commit a heinous crime while on bail.

When undertaking the issue of granting or denying bail, Courtsgenerally consider the
following factors

a) type of charge;

b) the nature of the accusation;

c) the type of the document supporting the allegations;

d) the degree of the sentence the defendant is likely to receive;

e) the risk that the defendant will abuse bail concessions by absconding or tampering with
evidence;

f) Defendant's age, gender and health conditions;

g) the social status or position of the accused and the complainant, etc.;

h) whether the grant of bail interferes with legal proceedings;

Therefore, granting bail for non-bailable offenses is at the mercy of the Court. Moreover, the
extra-ordinary powers should be used judiciously rather than arbitrarily. Courts apply various
criteria and tests to give bail in cases of bail-free crimes. Courts handling bail applications
must also take into consideration other conditions. The Court considers the factors listed
below:

a) the nature of the offense, the degree of the penalty, if convicted, and the nature of the
supporting evidence;

b) Legitimate reasons to fear manipulation by the witnesses or fear of compromising

complaints.

c) The Court's apparent satisfaction to uphold the prosecution.

If a person charged or suspected of having committed an offense not subject to bail is tried in
any of the four cases set forth above, in a Court other than a High Court or a Session Court.

• If a person is arrested.

• If a person is detained without a proper arrest warrant by a senior police officer.

• If a person appears.

• When brought before the Court of Registry.

A Magistrate may grant bail, only if there are legitimate grounds to believe that he has not
committed a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Courts also have the authority to grant anticipatory bail, but this power can only be used by
the Sessions Court or the receptive High Court. Criminal Procedure Code’s section 438
makes a provision for the grant of an anticipatory bail. The purpose of anticipatory bail is that
at the moment of arrest, if accused has already received an order from the Sessions Judge or
the High Court, he will be released immediately without worrying about the few days he
would have to face harsh prison terms. If it applies to release before arrest, it would definitely
be used.cclxxii Bail is a concept that protects individual liberty, not a passport to commit a
crime, nor a shield against charges of any kind.cclxxiii Anticipatory bail cannot be claimed by
operation of law. For the expected bail claims, arrest must be feared. Pre-arrest bail cannot be
used to negate police investigative powers. The pre-arrest bail clause should be broadly
construed by the Courts and should be broadly defined.

Sessions Court and the High Court have also special powers to grant bail. Section 439
Criminal Procedure Code gives exclusive authority to the High Court or Sessions Court in
this context. The authority to give bail under Section 439 is broader than under Section 437.
A hearing of both parties must take place before bail is granted. If bail is granted by a
Sessions Court, the High Court also have the authority to revoke bail. But one must prove a
valid reason for cancellation of bail. Matters to be considered by Courts in granting bail under
Section 438 or Section 439 Criminal Procedure Codes are:

• The nature and seriousness of the circumstances under which the crime was committed;

• Defendant's standing and position with respect to victims and witnesses:

• Possibility of defendant evading trial.

• The defendant's likelihood of repeating offenses.

• The chances of a conviction in this case are diminished by the defendant's risking his own
life.

• Possibility of defendant tampering with witnesses.

• The history of the incident and its investigation;

• Other relevant reasons that relate to the facts and conditions of the particular case.

For the grant of bail under section 439, if an investigation or litigation is pending, the relevant
considerations are summarized below. But these guidelines are not exhaustive and other
matters arising from the facts and circumstances of record in each case are also considered.
These are listed below

• The seriousness of the nature of the allegation.

• Severity of penalties leading to convictions.

• The nature of the evidence supporting the claim.

• The risk that the applicant will flee if released on bail.

• Risk of tampering with prosecution witnesses.

• Long time of the trial.

• Duration of detention of Defendant.

• Applicant's character, assets and reputation.

• Defendant's past behaviour in Court.

• Defendant's health, age and gender;

• Opportunities for defendants to prepare their defence and to consult with legal counsel.

• Repetition hazard.

Bail practice takes the form of bail for defendants against the amount they would lose if they
failed to comply with any of the condition of order issued by the Court.cclxxiv

In general, mandatory bail bonds are not handed over to the Court in cash, although this
practice may apply in the case of police bail.

Bail requires a sponsor (or patron) who must agree to pay a specified amount (surety) if the
defendant does not turn up in police station or Court on a specified date in addition to
sponsorship. Common law demands a bond to save a person, but it will be abandoned later.
However, although the Code of Criminal Procedure has never specified bail requirements as a
condition of bail, in practice, Courts grant bail only if the defendant submit surety. cclxxv
Therefore, an order to appear at the request of the police if necessary is a jurisdictional order,
and an order to participate in an investigation if necessary is valid.cclxxvi

A Court's power to impose bail conditions in a bail action may defeat the very purpose for
which the defendant seeks bail. Therefore, such privileges have not been granted and need
not be granted. But to strengthen the system of bail, the law provides discretion for Courts to
require conditions that further the procedure and objective of bail to ensure that the defendant
is protected both during his release and while he appears in Court. It demands that the Court
must ensure that his conduct during his release from prison complies with such norms as not
to create prejudice in the Courts or in the minds of the community. The limited discretion that
comes with it helps in tailoring a bail order to the specific case and defendant's needs.
However, it should not be used to impose unnecessary restrictions.

Under current law, it is not clear to what extent the release process affects the presumption of
innocence. In practice, this theory was seldom applied because Courts ignore every petition
filed whenever they found that the evidence of the police's guilty possession outweighed the
presumptive allegations. The application of the presumption of innocence for the purpose of
entertaining the concept of pre-trial release is where release is viewed solely as a policy of the
judicial administration for the limited objective of securing the appearance of the defendant
in Court without participation which can be redundant. The equivalence of freedom and
security has been disturbed.

Issues of bail for offenses subject to bail are considered and dealt with as those of the arrested
person. It is issued by police officers in case of small claims cases involving people who are
not known to be anti-social. A famous evil character has been detained and awaits further
investigation. However, this practice is limited to the extent that discretion is exercised to
achieve prompt results at the incitement and pressure of influential recommendations or
through settlements of financial interests made between representatives of the parties
concerned characterized by the inefficient and dishonest characteristics.

It is common to hold an arrested person in custody for an unreasonably long time in order to
appear in Court if they are suspected of a crime and hence is not released on bail. No formal
cases have been registered. Even 24 hours after the person has been arrested, the arrested
person does not appear in Court. Many of those arrested are either illiterate or have limited
income and limited opportunities to influence themselves, so they contact lawyers, friends
and relatives for opportunities to arrange legal aid and permanent guaranty. In such cases, the
arrest is not recorded on the official record, but it can show that some paperwork has been
completed. In short, much of the confusion around the issue of bail and how the bail system
works is the outcome of a fundamental misunderstanding of the term and a lack of
appropriate wording in the legal procedure. Only a fresh legislation on this issue can correct
mistake. But the proper working of the bail system in our legal arrangement must ensure the
survival of changed social facts that are pre-requisites for the bail system to work well.

B Test of Hypothesis

In addition, after considering above mentioned results, the test of hypothesis reveals that:

Currently, the provisions related to grant of bail in non-bailable offences are dispersed across
to the Code of Criminal Procedure. These provisions are neither well defined nor self-
explanatory. As such, in India, grant of bail is generally governed by various binding
guidelines issued by the Supreme Court and High Courts from time to time. As such, it leaves
scope for arbitrariness in use of judicial powers for grant of bail by the judges. Therefore, a
separate law in the nature of Bail Act is needed to check arbitrariness and to streamline the
process of grant of bail.

Remand by police is generally sought to extract confessions by adopting coercive methods.

The Investigating Agency, instead of depending upon the confessional statement of accused
extracted during the custody by coercion for collection of evidence, should opt for use of
scientific techniques for collection of evidence during the course of investigation. It will
minimize the demand of remand and will save the Investigating Agency from the allegations
of bias and use of third-degree methods.

It is revealed from the study that the large number of police investigations are tainted, not fair
and always influenced by extraneous factors viz. corruption, political influence etc.

In case of improper or unfair investigation, the Courts have power to monitor police
investigation, but in real sense, the Courts rarely exercise their power of monitoring the
investigation and it is generally tested in Court rooms.

C Suggestions

Making or formulating a fresh provision in the present Code for bail is the need of the hour. It
has to a purpose otherwise Code alone may not be sufficient to make the system of bail to
function smooth. The concerted effort by securing public support as well as participation of
the people in the administration of criminal justice is of paramount importance. It must be
coupled with necessary legislative, executive and judicial powers to act effectively in more
organized manner. Such targeted attempts can be useful in fulfilling the requirement desired
for smooth functioning of the system of bail in India. Few steps are urgently required in this
context: (a) Appropriate and proper utilization of police organization, (b) Need to develop the
tools to restrain the misuse of police power, (c) Speedy and timely trial of the accused, and
(d) Provision of free legal service aid right from the inception stage to the completion or end
of criminal procedure.

Compliance with existing bond and guarantee laws requires adoption of an exclusive and
comprehensive process to replace existing procedure of laws. The proposed code/procedure
should reflect the underlying philosophy, utility, and guidance regarding the granting and
denial of bail. From the perspective of the rise of specific issues in human rights justice,
particular reference should be made to the Agreement on Handling Cases of Minors,
Mentally Disabled Persons and Persons Detained for Preventive Purposes under Special
Laws.
Existing legal bail rules lack procedural clarity and completeness. Therefore, this ambiguity
and uncertainty must be replaced with clarity and consistency when amending the laws on
bails. Jurisdiction, the sequence of steps necessary to enforce bail, the extent and power of the
hierarchical order of various Courts to grant, deny, or overturn bail, the power to grant bail,
and the requirements for bail. Issues related to prescription bans where prescription bans are
not allowed need to be fully understood within the framework of the system.

• Other areas of this project include simplifying the criteria for classifying crimes into
bailable and non-bailable crimes. The appropriate authority must specify conditional and
unconditional circumstances and regulations to be followed in case of terms and conditions,
as well as their type and purpose. The types and conditions of release should be streamlined,
explained, and rationalized so that the accused can request the particular form of release
appropriate to his or her abilities and the circumstances of the case. The proposed code
therefore clears up confusion regarding procedures, enforcement, and remedies.

Two pertinent dimensions of the bail procedure should be considered while drafting new bail
laws. These are listed below:

(i) Police powers to grant bail; and (ii) Police powers to arrest and pre-trial detention. In the
former case, the law may expressly empower the police to give bail if arrested under a
warrant, unless the release was hasty for reasons to be recorded. This principle can also be
applied to summary crimes. The power to grant bail in the cases cited above may be followed
by the power of the police to demand a bond. In the latter case, where the original arrest by
police was not legal or warrantless, a police search request should only be considered
according to the procedure that is given by law in the Code.

Bail can reasonably be considered a presumption intended to favour the arrested person for
his release. Therefore, the defendant may not appear in Court on the appointed day, or the
prosecution's presumption that he may commit a criminal offence or obstruct the judicial
process by tampering with witnesses or tampering with evidence. However, a presumption in
favour of bail leads to conviction of the defendant. The basic purpose of bail is not to hold
someone before sentencing, nor to guarantee that the accused will appear in Court to
challenge the trial. Any use of the financial security by the defendant or guarantor may
thereafter be rescinded. Mechanisms based on the voluntary participation of citizens or
organizations in the judicial process may be legally recognized. Such citizens or
organizations can argue the propriety of showing a bailed defendant.
Courts should have the power to issue legitimate terms, but it should not be arbitrary. But it
may be stipulated that the terms and conditions must be related to the objective of defendant.
To ensure the attendance of the accused on the appointed day and does not interfere with the
process of justice. Factors relevant to assessing the risk of releasing a person on bail have
already been identified in many Court decisions. These factors can be catalogued along with
other necessary factors to establish identifiable criteria for exercise of Courts in using their
powers of discretion.

The bail hearing process requires special attention. Courts may be authorized to hold bail
hearings on camera. May be entitled to receive potentially relevant information or materials
notwithstanding admissibility issues under regulation or evidence. If bail is denied, or if a
Court seeks to make bail conditional, a reasoned order must be followed. Despite earlier
denials of bail by another Court, bail order on successive applications at different steps must
be made on the merits. Judicial review of amendments or revocation of bail orders passed by
Courts of first instance must take centre stage. The rights of defendants and states to appeal
bail orders should also be consolidated.

The existing guarantee law is rather inadequate. Determining whether legislation on this issue
should be interwoven with community-based organizations like the Manhattan Bail Project is
a political question. At any cost, the guaranty law must consider the guarantor's competence,
integrity, proximity (family, place of residence or place of work, etc.), and his moral fitness.
For individual warranties, one must provide history, legal capacity, and procedures to verify
suitability. This allows to check the growth of the secret channel of professional
recommendations. There is no need to prioritize the financial strength of the guarantor.
However, the surety is obliged to ensure the presence of the defendant at the agreed time and
place. If the guarantor violates already agreed terms, the liability must be in the form of fines
against him.

The above proposals only outline an approach to systematically deal with the new bond law.
Another piece of legal process is also needed, first to clear up general confusion and then to
legislate a robust arrangement for the proper functioning of the bail procedure. Reforming
existing bail laws and practices is certainly a difficult mandate. The rationality of bail law
requires discussion and consideration of the underlying assumptions underpinning bail to be
granted, the risks involved, and the identification of factors relevant to risk assessment.
Consideration must also be given to the stage at which the presumption in favour of bail
should be removed. A study of the nature of the bail and how to obtain it is prescribed. Legal
requirements limit the effectiveness of the bail bond process. Rather, the matter should be left
to the discretion of the judiciary to ensure the presence of the accused and the proper working
of the judiciary at the conclusion of the case. In some cases, the exercise of requiring
financial security from arrestees must be scrapped. Also, the replacement of guarantors by
fresh ventures, such as disclosed by the Manhattan Bail Project and the sub-negotiation
dormitory system common in some Scandinavian countries, may be mentioned in certain
cases for experimental purposes. Duration, modification, and revocation of bail orders also
pose problems, particularly in order to allow prosecutors to demand changes to the terms of
bail granted, or where violations or potential violations of conditions are important.
Therefore, it must be resolved.

Frequent postponement of criminal proceedings is also a factor to take into account when
assessing the effectiveness of the bail procedure. The fact that the conclusion of a criminal
case was delayed and the defendant's bail was extended provides the defendant with an
opportunity to reach out and influence the witnesses, and also the fruit of the harrowing
recollection of the event that the witness told for the first time in a long process. It provides
opportunities to take advantage of. This has a negative impact on the administration of justice
as well as the criminal justice system. The extended bail period for defendants due to
successive litigation stays may further reduce the likelihood that defendants will appear in
Court to obtain a guilty verdict if convicted. Therefore, the delay factor can have a direct
impact on increasing escape rates for criminals.

• The Code of Criminal Procedure only outlines bail provisions, but most of the work is done
by the Courts themselves. Rules of law established by Courts are subject to change by Courts
even if all these principles are under the preview of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore,
all legal principles established by higher judicial bodies should be included in bail provisions.

The Malimath Committee’s report gave the police more powers to issue bail. There is a general
impression that the police have no knowledge of law, only knowledge of power. Such a
combination is not good. The exercise of such absolute power may not protect the defendant's
interests. This aspect needs urgent reflection to avoid abuse of power by the police in
granting bail.

Judges are empowered with discretion to grant or deny bail. The use of this power is
commonly based on precedents. However, judges' unlimited powers are commonly abused
and severely criticized. Bail granted by a lower Court has been shown to be cancelled by a
higher Court. This requires certain criteria.

• If it is assumed that there are five defendants in the case, one has been arrested, one
defendant has not yet been arrested, so the four arrested persons bail request will not be
considered by the Courts. Thus, the fate of bail in such cases depends more on the non-arrest
of the co-defendants than on the merits. Such practices introduce unnecessary delays and
annoyances. So, the present situation demands to find solutions to these unhealthy traditions.

The law demands a limit on the amount of security bail or quantity of guarantees. The whole
issue is left to the Court's discretion. Many remain in prison due to lack of bail. Legal
restrictions can be made for individual case groups.

If the police fail to claim the challan within the time limit set out in Article 167(2) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, persons in custody are entitled to bail. It turned out that these legal
provisions were not strictly complied with. It is the Court's legal obligation to secure the
defendant's bail. The defendant can claim his rights in this context. A statutory obligation
must be enforced on the Courts in this context.

• Laws and practices relating to pre-trial detention, police bail, continuous bail claims upon
bail refusal, detention or release of juveniles, women, the sick, the elderly, and various
related matters inevitably require discussion and debate and demand rewriting of rules. The
tasks are extensive but it is important for the utilitarian and civilized working of the criminal
justice system. In short, reforming the bail law is not just a legal reform. This is a prelude to
our commitment to criminal justice reform. The study shows that the bail laws set out in the
Code of Criminal Procedure are still clouded by various legal procedure and a wealth of
precedents. Darkness permeates both. The bottom line is that the law lacks credibility in its
understanding and exercise. Without an adequate organized rule base through the application
of doctrine and principles, differences in bail law will continue. Reform therefore requires
every effort. Affected states and government agencies cannot ignore it for long, but it is
important to complete the codification and analysis work before embarking on reforms.
These are the requirements to draft a new code. Thus, intense debate must precede any new
law before it can be codified in its favour, even at the cost of undermining the “rule of law”
currently guaranteed by prevailing law.