.jpeg)
The criminal justice system is examined in this article along with recommendations for change. Its examination of domestic violence shows that the government's consultation in this area misread the issue it sought to solve, separating coercion and control from physical abuse while in fact they are both essential components of the phenomena as a whole. The current criminal code ignores this purpose to control, the full extent of the victims' suffering, and the fact that the wrong is pattern-based. After coming to this conclusion, it evaluates whether a specific offense is a viable candidate for reform and, after determining that it is, it presents a suggestion for a particular offense of domestic violence was created to address the three issues it had before noted. The judicial system must respond to domestic abuse in a coordinated and systematic manner. Even though the Indian Criminal Code's Section 498A is one of the most important changes to the penal code defending women's rights, it is insufficient. Because it is challenging to alter police culture, it is important to keep in mind that the criminal law is in fact a blunt instrument. Even while the law may recognize domestic violence against women as a crime, the police may still refuse to cooperate and successfully enforce it. We must embrace a new approach to policing, the victim empowerment model, which will establish pro-arrest practices and social support networks inside the police station, in order to move toward the successful implementation of Section 498A. The recently approved Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Law, 2005 is essential in that context because it provides legal protection for women who are victims of domestic abuse.
INTRODUCTION:
Laws are a collection of guidelines created by the government for citizens to follow and that also serve to control how they should behave. The majority of the time, governmental organizations enforces them. The legal system makes sure that everyone abides by the rules so that society may run smoothly and without any disruptions. The Indian Parliament creates the laws, which are then carried out by the executive branch and interpreted and upheld by the court. Additional legal distinctions can be made between the two basic categories of substantive laws and procedural laws. They comprise the two main categories of law.
Legislative bodies pass statutory laws, which are known as substantive laws.
Contrarily, procedural laws are the procedures and norms that every court must follow in order to hear and decide cases.
Adjective laws are another name for procedural laws. It is impossible to draft procedural laws without first passing substantive laws. Similar to how procedural laws are necessary for fair and proper application of substantive laws. Both laws are equally crucial, and one cannot be applied successfully without the other.
The distinction between substantive and procedural rules was made explicit by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Meerut v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup and Sons (1994). According to the Court, procedural laws are those that specify how rights and obligations are to be exercised and enforced, respectively, whereas substantive laws fix duties and establish rights and responsibilities among and for real or artificial people.
The substantive laws and the procedural laws are two interconnected and interdependent sets of legal systems.
The fundamental laws that establish the regulations and establish the guiding precepts in any given sector are known as substantive laws. One example of substantive legislation in India is the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), which lists many offenses and specifies the appropriate penalties.
The collection of processes to be followed in creating, implementing, and upholding substantive laws is known as procedural laws. The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), for instance, outlines the procedures that must be followed in criminal cases in India.
Legal Perspectives on Substantive Laws and Procedural Laws
Many legal experts have voiced their opinions on the distinction between laws.
In his book "The Works of Jeremy Bentham," published in 1843, the English philosopher, lawyer, and social reformer Jeremy Bentham originally used the words "substantive laws" and "adjective laws," which refer to procedural regulations. However, he argued that procedural and substantive laws should coexist in jurisprudence, as one cannot survive without the support of the other. John Austin, on the other hand, disagreed with this difference and took a wholly different approach to the law's goal. The British jurist Thomas Holland described "Substantive Law" as the laws that outline how the laws would help to preserve rights in his work "The Elements of Jurisprudence." In contrast, procedural laws or adjectival laws are the laws that outline the strategies for promoting and defending rights. According to legal scholar Salmond, it is impossible to pinpoint the "precise character of differentiation" of the laws. According to him, procedural laws are the laws of "actions" and regulate the litigation process, whereas the remaining laws are considered to be substantive law in his book "Jurisprudence." He goes on to say that procedural laws deal with the means and tools used to achieve these ends, whereas substantive laws are concerned with the outcomes desired by the administration of justice.
.jpeg)
.jpeg&description=DOMESTIC CRIMINAL LAW [SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL LAW] ){kind=link}