ForumIAS LATEST
- 04 June | MGP Strategy Series | GS Paper 4 (Ethics) with AIR 7 A.R. Rajah Mohaideen Click Here to register for the session →
- 04 June | GS Advance Program begins from 4th June 2026 | First 2 classes open to all Click Here to register for the event →
- 05 June | MGP Strategy Series | GS Paper 3 Strategy Session with AIR 406 Mannat Luthra Click Here to register for the session
- 06 June | Open Orientation on Essay Guidance Program (EGP 2026) Click Here to register →
- 07 June | Open Orientation for Current Affairs for Mains 2026 Click Here to register →
- 07 June | Sociology Optional Strategy Session with AIR 10 Ujjwal Priyank Click Here to register →
Govt to revisit Malimath report
Context
A 2003 report of a Committee on reforms in the criminal justice system that recommended admissibility of confessions made before a police officer as evidence in a court of law is being revisited by the Centre, a senior government official said.
The Malimath panel had made 158 recommendations but these were never implemented.
- The Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System, or the Justice Malimath Committee, was constituted by the Home Ministry in 2000 by then Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani, who also held the Home portfolio
- It was headed by Justice V.S. Malimath, former Chief Justice of the Karnataka and Kerala High Courts.
Discussed at DGP Conference
The Commitee’s report was discussed at the annual Directors General of Police (DGP) conference held at Tekanpur in Madhya Pradesh earlier this month at which Prime Minister NarendraModi was present.
Judges’ impeachment
- The Committee also suggested constituting a National Judicial Commission and amending Article 124 to make impeachment of judges less difficult.
- It had suggested that Section 54 of Evidence Act be substituted by a provision to the effect that in criminal cases, evidence of bad character and antecedents is relevant.
- Just as evidence of good character of the accused is relevant, evidence regarding bad character of the accused should also be relevant. There is no good reason why evidence regarding bad character of the accused should be made relevant only when evidence is led about his good character. This is quite illogical and irrational.
