When Power Humbles

I have never considered myself an optimist and there are rarely things around me which make me believe. Yet when I saw today, Narendra Modi go down and offer his bows and a customary 'pranam' to the Parliament steps I instantly found myself hopeful of a change in the life of our nation, a change for the better, a change for a height never before achieved by our great country though always believed to be capable if it. Modi ji's attitude speaks of our unique culture in which there is conferred a sacred faith and our supreme respect for our work,as it is what gives us our daily bread and recognition in the community of men and also a chance at making a difference in matters that are important. What makes the gesture of Modi ji even more valuable is that never before have we seen such an aestheticism being adopted in a place like Parliament. As far back as I can recall I have always observed and learnt that it is a place where mostly selfish politicians thrive and where there exists no place for sacredness and the purity of thoughts and acts. Though ironically it is one of the most crucial places in our country in dire need of such admirable practices. So the expression shown by Modi ji infuses much hope and expectation since it consigns our nations desires upon a a very relatable foundation. A man being blessed with a great responsibility and high office shows his respect for that place and offers his reverence to it before assuming it. This is as common as any of us getting a job and going to the office after offering our prayers when we start for work. Yet the rarity of the expression lies in the place where it is shown and by the person by whom it is shown. The commonplace nature of such an act counters doubts of arrogance and fear of abuse of power. It establishes the goodness of thoughts of the man in whom the people of our nation have, after a long long time, vested their near unanimous trust.

This discussion would not be complete without sharing what Narendra ji spoke in the BJP meeting where he was declared the leader of the Parliamentary Committee. While delivering his speech, he recalled how Advani ji had broken down while embracing him moments after party MPs endorsed his proposal to name him their leader, setting the stage for the new BJP-led government. Advani ji had said "I have a weakness..,. I am prone to tears. I thank the party and Narendra Modi for doing the kripa of letting me witness an unforgettable moment in our history," as he cried. An emotional Mr Modi responded, "Advani ji said I did him kripa. Please don't use this word. Can a son ever do his mother kripa? The party is my mother, it has done me the favour of giving me an opportunity to serve it." He was choking in tears when he was speaking. It was such an emotional moment. I couldn't help but share his sincerity in dedication for our nation. For a man who turned around the fate of his party, who captured the imagination of the youth and old alike like no other leader, who promises to deliver all our expectations, it was immensely humble to exhibit such demeanour in a national forum.

Many in the large audience of newly elected BJP MPs appeared equally moved. I saw Ravi Shankar Prasad, the law minister in waiting, crying, moved immensely by Modi ji's words. When I saw the whole situation, I thought to myself, this is what we were missing, this is what was lacking earlier. A sense of purpose, a bundle of sentiments beyond the mundaneness of the office to which our leaders are elected, a sense of belongingness to the whole cause of being elected and sent to serve the country in the hallowed hall of the Parliament. I found that sense, those sentiments in abundance today. A leader always carries his men alongwith him. That became evident when Modi ji declared "You see Modi not because Modi's stature is large. You See Modi because party elders hoisted me on their shoulders". Most adorably he recalled their dear beloved leader A.B. Vajpayee ji, and remarked that had he been there, his presence would have made the moment complete.

I am sure his detractors will discount the truth behind his tears and the honesty behind his words. Yet I am not going to criticize such an act since like thousands of my fellow country men I have seen enough betrayal of our aspirations by successive Governments to instantly devote entirely my belief. I am rather going to be skeptical, though optimistic, and wait. Only time will show Modi ji's performance and I have no doubts in hoping that he will best deliver the goods right how they ought to be delivered. If he does, history will hail him through ages as the man who steered India from the storm.

Considering that he spent his childhood in dire poverty where he would keep track of eight trains so that he could sell enough tea and earn for his home and skip classes and again return to school after selling tea in each of those trains, considering that he gave up his family life in pursuance of higher purpose, considering that his family nurtured an aggrieved Muslim boy for one whole year despite their poverty who still remains thankful to Modi ji's family, considering his performance as the undisputed leader in Gujurat for successive terms, I am fully motivated to expect great things from him as a leader especially in areas like poverty eradication, education, women safety, agriculture, foreign relations and economy.

I would like to believe that exciting times are ahead for our country, times which will fulfill immemorial aspirations of our fellow men. If that happens, history will judge Modi ji in the same scales as it did for some of the world's greatest leaders who changed the whole dimensions of their nations integral ingredients.

I believe Modi ji will bring about marvellous changes. I hope mine and beliefs of my fellow countrymen are rewarded.

Divested In Democracy

It is often asked that who will guard the guardians. This question reminds of the Latin phrase 'Quis custodiet ipso custodies ? ' penned by the Roman poet, Juvenal. The saying induces one to dwell on the issue as to in whom the ultimate powers should vest. Democracies around the world try to resolve the dilemma by separating powers between various organs that are responsible for governance and administration. The idea is to never give ultimate power to any one group, but to let the interests of each limb of the State collide and conflict with that of the others. The point of it being that absolute power shall not rest in any authority. In that way each bloc will find it in its interest to check and impede the excesses of others, thereby constantly and perpetually inhibiting it from corrupting itself.

 Perhaps born out of the fear of the hackneyed saying "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely", separation of powers between various organs of the State ensures that each is the sentinel against the corrupt tendencies of the other. Man's ingenuity has led him to overcome every obstacle before fulfillment of his aspirations. It has led him to devise schemes to circumvent the restraint sought to be induced by separation of powers. Organs are hands in gloves to look away from each other's foibles. So instead of acting as custodian of the each other’s virtues, agencies of the State obligated to implement laws, have done deals to remain oblivious to the wrongs committed by their counterparts in return for having their own corruption overlooked, thereby ensuring that the law remains a dead letter in thick books.

By and large, however, the system of separation of powers is a befitting recourse for the soundness of any democracy. Notwithstanding the outcomes presently afflicting the administration of the nation, this principle should never be given up, if we intend to preserve the ideals of our democratic Constitution.

WHEN LAWYERS DON’T ARGUE

"I would not call it an opportunity (to be an amicus in Kasab's case). I think it was an honour given to me…I took it as a sacred duty and I performed it to the best of my ability.”

-          Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India, on being appointed as amicus curiae to defend Ajmal Kasab in Apex Court.

 

            Is it proper for any lawyer to refuse to defend any person who is either unpopular, or whom everyone believes to be guilty or whom he himself believes to be guilty? Such is the nature of this debate that it has lived with us since the times of Shakespeare. This question surfaces every time there is either a crime which is so heinous that even lawyers who are duty bound to stand between the accused and the State deny to do so or when the community of lawyers resolve to not represent a particular accused by reason of prejudice or past animosity or because of similar causes. The question is considered more often than not from a moralistic point of view rather than from a legal angle. There is nothing wrong per se in being moralistic in the legal profession, in fact, the right blend of morality and law is capable of doing wonders in administration of justice but the problem begins when the morality is misplaced. And on the basis of such misplaced morality one decides to disregard golden principles of the legal profession.    

             In the present context, let us recall the trial of Thomas Paine, the revolutionary writer of France, who had been charged with seditious libel after the publication of the second part of his work ‘Rights of Man’, and against whom almost the entire community of men had turned. Paine was accused of being a criminal and a terrorist, his offense being the publication of the said book. His earlier writings had been ignored by the government, but his impugned works were perceived as maliciously and wickedly intended to incite violence toward the government. Charges were brought and a criminal action was instituted. No lawyer came forward to represent his defense since it was considered sacrilege and treason to defend Paine in Court and the lawyer choosing to stand up for Paine was sure to be stigmatized and ostracized. Under such inimical circumstances only one fearless attorney stepped forward and he was promptly warned by his most important client that he would lose him if he continued the representation of Paine in Court. The lawyer categorically indicated his intent to proceed and as expected he was fired by that client of his. The lawyer who stepped forward to defend Paine was none other than the great Thomas Erskine, eventual Lord Chancellor of Great Britain. Erskine's decision to defend Paine cost him his position as attorney-general to the Prince of Wales, to which he had been appointed in 1786. Men who criticized Paine also condemned Lord Erskine and called him a traitor. Outraging rumours and writings were published against Erskine. But he never budged. Any discussion on the topic at hand would therefore be incomplete without reminding ourselves of the very famous speech of Lord Erskine rendered by him during the trial of Paine. Erskine's speech is also remembered for his reflection on the duty of advocates to take up even unpopular cases. He spoke thus :

            “My name and character have been the topic of injurious reflection and for what? Only for not having shrunk from discharge of a duty which no personal advantage recommended, and which a thousand difficulties repent. But gentlemen (of the jury) I’ve no complain to make either against the printers of these libels nor even against their authors. The greater part of them ….may have believed that they were serving their country by rendering me the object of it’s suspicion and contempt and if there have been amongst them others, who are mixed in it from personal malice and unkindness, I thank God that I can forgive them also.

Little indeed they know me who thought that such calumnies could influence my conduct. I will forever, at all hazards, assert the dignity, independence, and integrity of the English Bar, without which impartial justice, the most valuable part of the English constitution, can have no existence. From the moment that any advocate can be permitted to say that he will or will not stand between the Crown and the subject arraigned in the court where he daily sits to practice, from that moment the liberties of England are at an end.  

If the advocate refuses to defend from what he may think of the charge or the defense, he assumes the character of the Judge, nay he assumes it before the hour of judgment and in proportion to the risk, rank and reputation puts the heavy influence of perhaps a mistaken opinion into the scale against the accused in whose favour the benevolent principle of English law makes all presumptions and which commands the very Judge to be his counsel."

A society can be called civilised only when it offers, even for the most barbaric criminal, a fair chance to defend himself. A lawyer must partake in the process of such a person’s defense notwithstanding his personal reservations regarding the man. Only then would he have fulfilled his true role as a lawyer. This is what eminent Senior Counsel Raju Ramachandran indicated when he said that he considered it an honour to defend Ajmal Kasab in the Supreme Court long after the entire country had declared him guilty. Guilty he was without a shred of doubt. Nevertheless he was entitled to his day in Court. That is the rule of law on which the founding fathers of our Constitution rested the fate of our great nation. There was pervasive cynicism against our judicial process, in the minds of our own countrymen, when the very man they saw to have killed hundreds of their fellow citizens, using one after another legal provision to stall the proceedings. He exhausted all forums available at his disposal and was ultimately found guilty by the Supreme Court and executed. Our judicial process thus honourably withstood the test of impatience and suspicion of several in the Kasab’s case to come out clean and effective in the end. This would not have been possible if lawyers would not have represented Kasab at various stages, right from the stage of trial to his appeal in the Apex Court. 

            Problem arises when Bar Associations pass resolutions against representation of certain accused persons. It has happened in the Delhi ‘Nirbhaya’ gangrape case, in Ajmal Kasab’s case and several other instances when the concerned Bar Association has resolved to not represent a particular accused in Court. Imposition of such decree on one and all prevents even the right minded advocates from pursuing their profession in proper spirit. One can understand that most of the times it is the terrible nature of crime which deters advocates, who are after all human beings, from defending the alleged perpetrator of such ghastly offences. But the point that seems to be overlooked is that until and unless the accused is not represented in Court, the judicial process cannot begin and consequently the guilt cannot be determined and therefore the sentencing will be mired in delays and laches. That being one persuasion, the other comes from the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself, which has categorically ordered (dtd. 30.07.2010) in the case of Mohd. Shuaib and Ors. Vs. Bar Council Of India & Ors. that

If any State Bar Council receives information/complaint that any advocate is being prevented by an advocate or advocates or any Bar Association from appearing and/or representing any accused, the Chairman of the State Bar Council and/or any member so empowered by the State Bar Council shall forthwith issue directions to the concerned advocate, advocates or Bar Association to cease and desist from such action.

The Courts are also under a duty to ensure that the accused is provided legal representation right from the moment he is produced before them. The Courts should ensure that the accused is provided the services of a lawyer through all stages of the case. Therefore if no one comes forward to represent the accused the Court should immediately appoint a State Defence Counsel / Legal Aid Counsel to represent the accused in Court.

And so far as lawyer's themselves coming forward to take up unpopular cases is concerned, hereinbelow is reproduced Lord Erskine’s immortal words in the Indian context

Let the learned Indian lawyers forever, at all hazards, assert the dignity, independence, and integrity of the Indian Bar, without which impartial justice, the most valuable part of the Indian constitution, can have no existence

DOCTRINE OF POSTPONEMENT – BALANCING RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL OF ACCUSED & RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH & EXPRESSION OF MEDIA

“A defendant on trial for a specific crime is entitled to his day in court, not in a stadium or a city or

nationwide arena.” -          Thomas Campbell Clark (United States Attorney General from 1945 to 1949 and an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of  the United States from 1949 to 1967)

While upholding the death sentence of Ajmal Kasab, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came down heavily on the electronic media and made a scathing criticism of its reckless coverage of the 26^th November terror attack on Mumbai and observed that "the coverage helped the assailants counter security movements as their positions were being reported live. The operational movements were being watched by the collaborators across the border on TV screens and being communicated to the terrorists.” Media overreach is a daily affair these days, especially in under trial cases. Accused persons standing trial or who are likely to stand their trial in Courts, are being treated and tossed around like villains on prime time television debates much prior to the hearing of their cases.  Television channels indulge in deliberating, discussing and garnering speculative opinion regarding the facts and fate of under trial cases. The peril of prejudice born out of such unwarranted barrage of speculations and opinions about sub judice matters never appears to be considered by the media while dealing with such subjects. What the media seems to be unmindful of is the fact that excessive prejudicial publicity leading to usurpation of functions of the Court, not only interferes with administration of justice which is sought to be protected under Article 19(2), it also prejudices or interferes with a particular legal proceeding.

One specific area where the media of our country urgently needs to focus is that of achieving a correct poise while dealing with sub judice matters without surrendering journalistic ideals. The Apex Court has declared that “A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is the very antithesis of rule of law”. Unfortunately, rules designed to regulate journalistic conduct are inadequate to prevent their encroachment upon civil rights. Therefore any prevention and / or regulation must necessarily come from the outside. Amidst such circumstances, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark verdict on 11.9.2012 in the case of Sahara India Real Estate & Ors Vs Securities & Exchange Board Of India & Anr.,wherein it expounded what is known as the doctrine of postponement. In this case the Court was seized with the adjudication of a dispute between the Sahara Group and market regulator SEBI (Securities Exchange Board of India) which had arisen due to alleged leakage of sensitive confidential communication inter parties and their consequential publication by the media. As a preventive measure against publications tending to prejudice the targets of such publication, the Apex Court propounded the ‘doctrine of postponement’ the gist of which it stated as thus:

“anyone, be he an accused or an aggrieved person, who genuinely apprehends on the basis of the content of the publication and its effect, an infringement of his/ her rights under Article 21 to a fair trial and all that it comprehends, would be entitled to approach an appropriate writ court and seek an order of postponement of the offending publication/ broadcast or postponement of reporting of certain phases of the trial (including identity of the victim or the witness or the complainant), and that the court may grant such preventive relief, on a balancing of the right to a fair trial and Article 19(1)(a) rights, bearing in mind the …. principles of necessity and proportionality and keeping in mind that such orders of postponement should be for short duration and should be applied only in cases of real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice or to the fairness of trial. Such neutralizing device (balancing test) would not be an unreasonable restriction and on the contrary would fall within the proper constitutional framework.”

 The Supreme Court has categorically remarked that orders of postponement should not disturb the content of the publication and such orders would only be appropriate in cases where the balancing test otherwise favours non-publication for a limited period. The Hon’ble Court elucidated the requirement of the doctrine by observing that

‘when there is no other practical means that is capable of avoiding the real and substantial risk of prejudice to the connected trials, postponement orders safeguards the fairness of such trials.’

Critics of the verdict predict that the judgment will lead to harassment of media persons and that it would create serious problems and opens the floodgates for the high and mighty to seek virtual censorship. However, in order to preempt any inference of its verdict as an attempt to suppress freedom of the media, the Apex Court while indoctrinating in the aforestated case has already made its views on the importance of media’s role clear. The Court has acknowledged that the media, in several cases in India, is the only representative of the public to bring to the notice of the court issues of public importance including governance deficit, corruption, drawbacks in the system. It has been further clarified that by setting forth the doctrine the Court is not passing a blanket order, rather the concerned Courts shall be free to deal with each application on a case by case basis. It is equally noteworthy that, this is not the first time that the Supreme Court has favoured the principle of postponement. In several instances in the past it has allowed prior restraint on publication and has thereby asserted that such an approach on its part is neither unwarranted nor unjustified.

A fair and unbiased media is indispensable in our country. It has in its own way served as a check against the corrupt and stood guard against exploitation of the vulnerable. Incidental to such purport and objective of its function, the media must necessarily carry with it the inherent right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed by our Constitution. However, unlike in the United States of America where freedom of expression is absolute under the First Amendment, in India freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and it is subject to reasonable restrictions. It’s high time the media realized the necessity of such a limitation keeping in mind the principles discussed and directions laid down in Sahara India Real Estate & Ors Vs Securities & Exchange Board Of India & Anr . It must also remember that playing to the gallery may maximize media's immediate commercial gains but slowly yet surely it’ll stand bereft of the support and admiration of the right minded people and that would be a barter the media cannot afford to make. Reinforcing the foundation of our democracy involves according due weight to both – right to free speech and expression on one hand and the effective administration of justice by ensuring fairness of trials on the other - a valued rule required to be remembered by all concerned.

A Reminder For States Where 'Khaps' Are Thriving

There is no disputing the deplorable truth, that the lawful Government of States, where something utterly unlawful as 'Khap' panchayats are thriving unabashedly,  are in denial of the related perils. From the various things that we have been hearing, watching and reading about the recent illegalities committed by the Khaps, nothing further remains to be said. It is not at all complex to ascertain, that the Khaps are perpetrating crimes. Therefore the only thing that now needs to be done is to remind these State Governments about the legal duty incumbent upon it in this whole episode, hoping that in order to save their own skin they won't be as dismissive about the issue as they are being now.

The following reminder purports to be succinct yet highly relevant

• When 'Khaps' issue threats and / or warnings to the villagers with dire consequences in case they didn’t follow their illegal commands, such acts of the 'Khap' can atleast be squarely brought under the offence of criminal intimidation as defined under Section 503 read with Section 506 of the IPC.

        503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with any injury to his 

       person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that 

       person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person 

       to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that 

       person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, 

       commits criminal intimidation.

         506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits the offence of 

         criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a 

         term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. If threat be to cause 

         death or grievous hurt, etc.—and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or 

         to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with 

         death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 

         seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with 

         imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or 

         with fine, or with both.

• It is equally relevant to remind the concerned authorities about Section 40 of our Code of Criminal Procedure which casts the following duties :-

Section  40. Duty of officers employed in connection with the affairs of a village (see below for meaning) to make certain report 

(1) Every officer employed in connection with the affairs of a village and every person residing in a village shall forthwith communicate to the nearest Magistrate or to the officer in charge of the nearest police station, whichever is nearer, any information which he may possess respecting—

(a) *********

(b) *********

(c) the commission of, or intention to commit, in or near such village any non-bailable offence or any offence punishable under Section 143 (Making an unlawful assembly), Section 144 (Making an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons), Section 145 (Joining or continuing in an unl;awful assembly knowing that it has been commanded to disperse), Section 147 (Rioting), or Section 148 (Rioting armed with deadly weapons) of the Indian Penal Code  ;

(d) the occurrence in or near such village of any sudden or unnatural death or of any death under suspicious circumstances or the discovery in or near such village of any corpse or part of a corpse, in circumstances which lead to a reasonable suspicion that such a death has occurred or the disappearance from such village of any person in circumstances which lead to a reasonable suspicion that a non-bailable offence has been committed in respect of such person ;

(e) *****

(f) ******

(2) In this section—

(i) “village” includes village-lands ;

(ii) *******

(iii) the words “officer employed in connection with the affairs of the village” means a member of the Panchayat of the village and includes the headman and every officer or other person appointed to perform any function connected with the administration of the village.

• Apart from the clear legal provisions which the Khaps violate, the said Pnachayats are also in direct violation of the Supreme Court's directives which had declared them to be outright illegal. In its wisdom, the Hon'ble Supreme Court,  on a relevant occasion directed the administrative and police officials to take strong measures to prevent any atrocious acts perpetrated by the Khaps. 

• Court's Warning - The Hon’ble Court had categorically stated that "if any such incidents happen, apart from instituting criminal proceedings against those responsible for such atrocities, the State government concerned is directed to immediately suspend the District Magistrate/Collector and the SSP/SPs of the district as well as other officials concerned and chargesheet them and proceed against them departmentally if they do not prevent the incident if it has not already occurred but they have knowledge of it in advance,or if it has occurred, they do not promptly apprehend the culprits and others involved and institute criminal proceedings against them, as, in our opinion, they will be deemed directly or indirectly accountable in this connection" 

(The Court had directed that a copy of it’s judgment be sent to all Chief Secretaries, Home Secretaries and Directors-General of Police in all States and Union Territories, and circulated to all officers up to the level of District Magistrates and SSP/SP for strict compliance. )

Therefore it's high time that someone moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the Hon'ble State High Court of the concerned state against the accountable Government officials, on the strength of the aforementioned legal provisions and / or the aforestated directive of the Apex Court in the wake of recent atrocities perpetrated by the Khaps.

Soni Sori (Justice Forgotten)

By reason of the work I do, I've nurtured the instinct of not jumping to conclusions without ample facts reasonably establishing the truth of a particular allegation. Having said that when the indications and suggestions are palpably horrifying and inhuman, the least that is expected to be done is a prompt, fair and unbiased investigation into those indications and suggestions to swiftly unravel the truth. For that to be achieved, the more serious the allegations, the higher is the requirement of impartiality in investigation.

I read something on The Standing Coin which kept me awake last night. Every time I wanted to sleep, something punched my insides, reminding me of the gut wrenching allegations of injustice and suffering I had read and seen.

I've quoted hereinbelow the article Soni Sori Justice Forgotten written by the prolific author Siddharth Gupta. (He blogs at The Standing Coin). It's impossible to feel what I felt without watching the full video that Siddharth has shared in his article. Please watch it patiently.

A woman’s fight against violence, abuse and in all its essence, society has always been a war against patriarchy. We would be foolish in saying that the structure of our society is equally balanced. Although women are the heads to the tails of our coin, they have never been given the respect, the value and truly the love they deserve.

The question here is not about the statistics. All of us know that they are shocking enough. The point here arises is WHY? Why doesn't this stop? Although the past few years have seen a remarkable rise in awareness about female rights and this entire topic at hand, disturbing occurrences still destroy our beliefs as the fantastical world shatters.  Some of the incidents are simply disgusting, horrifying and in the crudest of terms, makes one want to puke. Despite the guaranteeing of women rights by International laws, women still continue to be treated as third class citizens in a second class world.

One of the most disturbing cases I have come across is that of Soni Sori. Soni Sori is a simple adivasi schoolteacher from Chattisgarh, India. A small rehash, Chattisgarh is notorious for its Naxal activities. Sori along with her nephew was arrested and sent to Raipur jail in October 2011. Ignoring the frivolous and ridiculous charges framed against her, Soni Sori was sexually abused and tortured by the police force. To elaborate on the brutal, inhumane violation of her human rights, let me inform you of the QUESTIONING methods used by the police. She was electrocuted on multiple occasions with wires being connected to her bare toes. She was stripped naked and was made to answer questions while police officers, including the Superintendent of Police, Ankit Garg leered at her. He forced her to stand naked while he sat on a chair and abused her in filthy terms. After this, he sent in three police men to sexually assault her which went on for hours. No one knows what happens and many dismiss this as allegations, a known fact is that after finding Sori in a near comatose state, she was taken to Kolkata Medical College where doctors removed STONES from her vagina and rectum. It appalls me and disgusts me that the Indian Police Force is run by such sick and disgusting bastards!

Reading Soni Sori's Letter From Prison

This is not the entire story. Despite such horrendous acts, Ankit Garg received the Police Medal for Gallantry from the President of India in 2012. To answer strong protests, all the police had to offer was “The Sori case is a different matter”. Yeah, it’s like saying let a person nab a goon and murder or rape a few women but wait! We DO need to reward him for grabbing the goon right? Also, Sori is a mother. She has three children. Imagine their plight. Imagine her husband’s plight. Thanks to a spirited letter by about 250 famed activists to the Prime Minister on 30 April 2012, Soni was taken to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi for treating her horrendous injuries.

Sadly, Sori is still in prison. In a battle of getting FDI, the government has failed to make Internal Direct Investment. Women grovel, as our minstrels cry. Tehelka, a hardcore journalism magazine, started an online campaign to guarantee justice for Soni. The links are attached below. Please do your bit and help. I hope we change. Soon, Fast and Now.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN TEHELKA'S PETITION TO SECURE JUSTICE FOR SONI SORI

I obviously have no means of knowing the truth behind these allegations found in the article quoted above. But as a citizen of a nation, which is committed to democratic and welfare ideals, especially emancipation of women, I strongly demand and expect an effective and unbiased investigation into such accusations of brutal atrocities, as the least that can be done for Soni Sori at the moment, besides of course giving a sincere and serious consideration to removing her from the jail in the state of Chattisgarh and putting her (only if her custody is really necessary) under humane conditions in some jail of any other state.

Supreme Court Propounds New Doctrine On Media Regulation

It is called the "Doctrine Of Postponement". The Hon'ble Apex Court has yesterday held that "An accused or an aggrieved person, who genuinely apprehends an infringement of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution can seek postponement of publication." The Hon'ble Court was dealing with the dispute between the Sahara Group and market regulator SEBI, when a complaint was filed against breach of confidentiality during the pendency of the dispute in Court. It was alleged that certain sensitive confidential documents regarding the dispute were allegedly leaked and telecast. Adjudicating upon the complaint, the Hon'ble Court has laid down its observations. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Sri S.H. Kapadia, observed that "Finding an acceptable constitutional balance between the freedom of press and administration of justice is a difficult task in every legal system." He also recalled the observation made by the Hon'ble Court in 1977 in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. R.J. Gandhi that "A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is the very antithesis of rule of law."

While allowing liberty to the accused to move Courts for postponement of publication of his case the Court also laid down a caveat that "Such orders of postponement should be for short duration and should be applied only in cases of real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice or to the fairness of trial."..."Reasonable restrictions on reporting of Court proceedings are needed for societal interest and this doctrine of postponement is one of neutralizing technique." It further observed that "Orders of postponement should be ordered for a limited duration and without disturbing the content of the publication... The order of postponement will only be appropriate in cases where the balancing test otherwise favours non-publication for a limited period,"

This doctrine is aimed at balancing the right of an accused to be presumed innocent till completion of trial with the media's right to freedom of expression.

It is pertinent to mention here that the Supreme Court refused to frame guidelines for media reporting of court trials but said higher judiciary could impose a temporary freeze on coverage if it was convinced that reporting in a case thus far had harmed the right of the accused to fair trial.

"The Doctrine of Postponement will serve as a lakshman rekha for the journalists and warn them not to cross it," the CJI said while reading out the judgment. The bench said when there was conflict between two weighty rights - right to dignity and right to presumption of innocence guaranteed under Article 21 and right to free speech under Article 19 - the right to free speech must give way to right to life as in India, the right under Article 19(1)(a) was not an absolute one. And ofcourse the media will have the right to appeal against postponement orders.

Information Courtesy - Times Of India

Read for more analysis on media trial :-

 (On free speech, media trial & prejudice ) and

(On delays in justice, revelations about judicial process & more on free speech, role of media & prejudice...)

Supreme Court Settles The Law on Anticipatory Bail

Before I inform my dear readers about the captioned development, I must explain to them what is anticipatory bail in the first place. Law provides for curtailment of liberty by way of arrest in certain prescribed scenarios. Bail is the security that a person is directed to give to the Court / releasing authority in lieu of the conditional freedom he is granted from such curtailment. Bail may be granted with or without surety (guarantor). Now this naturally means that the question of bail arises only when a person is in custody and he seeks to get out of the same. But in case of anticipatory bail, a person applies for bail, even before he is arrested, in anticipation of such arrest. The relevant provision of law is laid down in Section 438 of our Code of Criminal Procedure. It basically says that whenever a person apprehends or has reasons to believe that he is likely to be arrested on suspicion of him having committed a non bailable offence then he can apply either to the Court of Sessions or to the High Court, for issuing a direction that in the event of his arrest he shall be released on bail. Then the concerned Court, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of that case, may decide accordingly.  It needs to be understood that this provision exists to prevent so far as possible malicious arrests and frivolous detention which are politically motivated either to humiliate or to injure the reputation of the concerned person.

A Court while considering an application for anticipatory bail usually weighs the following factors:-

• the nature and gravity or seriousness of the accusation as apprehended by the applicant
• the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has, on conviction by a Court, previously undergone imprisonment for a term in respect of any cognizable offence 
• whether motive behind the accusation is to humiliate or malign the reputation of the applicant by having him arrested 

Yesterday the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled a long debated issue as to whether anticipatory bail should or should not be granted to absconders and persons who flee beyond the reach of the investigative agency even before their arrest. The Hon'ble Court held that no court should grant anticipatory bail to a person who had been declared an absconder either during the investigation or during the trial.

Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Sathasivam agreed with the proposition of additional solicitor general Siddharth Luthra and said, "We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant has been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and is declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail."  The case related to the alleged suicide of Vibha in her in-law's house in Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, on September 1 last year. She was married on January 19, 2010. The bench said the allegations levelled against the accused persons, including the husband's brother, was that they subjected Vibha to cruelty demanding sizeable amount in order to settle the payment of Rs 5 lakh for the flat allotted by Delhi Development Authority.






*Information Courtesy - The Times Of India

Supreme Court Thrashes Media Coverage of 26/11 Incident

While we are hailing the prevalence of justice, in the Kasab episode, let us also take a moment's time to consider what the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said about the manner in which media covered the story and broadcast it over their channels. Now, there cannot be any double standard in accepting the verdict which the Apex Court has handed in Ajmal Kasab's case by upholding the death sentcence awarded to him by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. One has to therefore also pay attention and weightage to other related observations made by Hon'ble Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Justice C.K. Prasad while delivering their judgment. They came down heavily on the media and made a scathing criticism of the electronic media's "reckless coverage" of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks and observed that instead of serving the interests of the nation, T.V. channels made it difficult for the security forces to fight back. Live telecast of the operations could have even resulted in security personnel suffering casualties, they added.

Taking note of the tapped conversations between the attackers and their collaborators across the border, the court said "coverage helped the assailants counter security movements as their positions were being reported live."  " The operational movements were being watched by the collaborators across the border on TV screens and being communicated to the terrorists," the court added. On the other hand security forces had no means to know terrorists' exact position or even the kind of firearms and explosives they possessed. "Any attempt to justify the conduct of the TV channels by citing the right to freedom of speech and expression would be totally wrong and unacceptable in such a situation. The freedom of expression, like all other freedoms under Article 19, is subject to reasonable restrictions," the bench remarked.

Ripping into the minute-by-minute coverage of the “enemy action,” the bench held that “by covering live the terrorist attack on Mumbai in the way it was done, the Indian TV channels were not serving any national interest or social cause”. The channels, the judges said, “were acting in their own commercial interests putting the national security in jeopardy”. Backing the contention of security agencies and the evidence they had gathered, the court said that the live telecast gave the attackers an edge as their handlers in Pakistan watched the movement of security forces and alerted the terrorists by phone. It underlined that all channels were competing with each other in showing the latest developments, including the positions and movements of security forces.

These shots and visuals could have been telecast after all the terrorists were neutralised and the security operations were over, the court added. “But, in that case the TV programmes would not have had the same shrill, scintillating and chilling effect and would not have shot up the TRP ratings of the channels,” it said.   The coverage of the Mumbai terror attack by the mainstream electronic media has done much harm to the argument that any regulatory mechanism for the media must only come from within," the bench further observed.  It is in such extreme cases that the credibility of  an institution is tested." 

(Information Courtesy: Indian Express and Hindustan Times)

Justice In Jeopardy.. Resolving The Debate

I write this article motivated by the query that a dear fellow blogger, Rahul V. Nair (who blogs at freedomofexpression ) put to me as thus, after reading my article Justice in Jeopardy... Why ?

"Hi Anupam Nice Post, could you pls explain how our Judiciary should be upgraded for future( I would like to know about it in detail)and how allotting more money in the budget can help it. I am just curious to know about it that's all, hope u won't mind telling."

First of all I heartily thank Rahul and all other readers who gave their valuable time for reading Justice in Jeopardy... Why ? and sharing their precious opinions in this regard. As I have mentioned earlier in that article. I wrote it when I read another article called "Justice In Jeopardy" written by a learned fellow blogger. I had to write it, especially when I read the comments of people who read her article. Judiciary is so often misunderstood and for all the misinformed reasons. So I took it upon myself to clarify a few issues. So that people can make informed opinions then. It was after reading my article that Rahul has asked his question and I'm more than glad to answer his query.

I don't mind at all answering his highly significant question. Half way replying to his comment / query I decided to dedicate a full post for it.  As for his question, it's very difficult to write everything I want to say. There are so many intricate issues that provide the lifeblood for our judiciary that it's difficult to concisely put them in a single answer. However concentrating on the two major issues that I'v dealt with in my article viz. delay in disposal of cases and mechanism of investigation, I'll state some bullet points which in my humble opinion could be crucial in improving the present state of affairs.

Let me first deal with the delayed justice aspect. It must be borne in mind that the actual rate of disposal of cases per judge has been consistently improving in recent years, but the rate of institution of proceedings has been growing at an even faster  pace. It is this growing gap between the rate of disposal and the rate of institution of litigation that is a cause for worry. It is in response to these problems, that it is important to implement effective strategies for proper case management. I'll say that there needs to be a phase wise exponential increase in the number of Courts and Judges all over the country. Now that includes increasing the number of Courts in a district, appointment of Court staffs, building of infrastructure to let the Courts function in a dignified manner.

The approach has to migrate from adversarial system to re conciliatory wherein instead of fighting out long drawn legal battles, parties with the assistance of Courts and their advocates are able to mutually come to a settlement in an expeditious manner. Several such methods such as Lok Adalats, Arbitration techniques, Conciliation proceedings have to be given utmost significance for dispute resolution. These are popularly known as ADR (Alternate Dispute Resolution) techniques . However this is more likely in relation to civil disputes than criminal cases. Since crimes are treated as wrongs against the society rather than as wrongs against the victim only.

Case management and planning is also vital to the functioning of a modern judiciary. Its implementation will however at some stage require serious reflection on the changes required in our system. I am however confident and  optimistic that if implemented appropriately it will go a long way in addressing the problems of arrears and delay.  

Then there have to be substantial changes in the procedural laws of our country, which I believe, more often than not, tie the hands of Courts from coming down heavily on protracting litigators. This includes mandatory large amount of fine / costs imposable on parties who deliberately delay hearing of their cases and mandatory fixation of time limit for disposal of cases, particularly sensitive cases like crimes against women and terrorism cases. These will make a significant improvement in the rate at which cases are being disposed of today. One must understand that no Court or Judge would like to see his office stacked with a large number of case records. Courts are always inclined to lessen their burden. It's a natural tendency. But co operation must also flow from the litigators including their respective lawyers, who must make it a point not to delay hearing of their cases.

The Govt. also needs to substantially increase the number of Fast Track Courts and special courts, and come up with special tailor made procedural laws which would govern their functioning. For example a fast track court set up to adjudicate upon the trial of certain alleged terrorists cannot expedite the trial in a noteworthy manner, if it too like normal Courts is guided by the same laws with regard to procedures of hearing and adjudication.

The second most important aspect of dispensation of justice demands a fair, fearless and effective investigation. So that the Courts have before them a clear picture through the evidence collected by such exemplary investigation. Investigators have to be free from all kinds of political and / or institutional pressures in performing their duties. In several cases delay in hearing occurs due to non attendance of official witnesses especially Police witnesses. The Police deptt. is understaffed and they find it difficult to manage their time between attending to highly urgent duties of law and order management and their task of attending equally important Court proceedings and giving their evidence. My humble suggestion is to separate a specific department of Police dedicated to investigation and giving evidence in cases. This would solve the problem of their unavailability to testify in Courts as well as help in timely adjudication of cases.

The much talked about witness protection program is also a crying need of the hour. Since it is often seen that witnesses say something to Police at the time of investigation but change their stand when it comes to testifying under oath before a Court. This results in the acquittal of the accused persons leading to a popular belief that Courts are incapable of punishing the guilty. What can be done here is that witnesses have to be given assurance of real protection and if need be rehabilitation in lieu of their truthful testimony in Courts. But this requires indulgence of honest officers at all levels of this system. If any witness suffers despite such a witness protection scheme, no one will ever come forward to testify the truth in Courts.

Furthermore there needs to be a realistic system of expenditure reimbursement of witnesses who come to the Courts. One which would adequately repay them the expenses incurred by them in coming and testifying for a case. It is also important that the mechanism which allows this facility is a swift one and the reimbursement is done without much hassle to the witness. It is also required that if the party who is supposed to examine / cross examine a particular witness on a given date of hearing, intentionally evades doing so, without any just cause, for unduly harassing the witness or for any other mala fide purpose, he be made bound to pay adequate cost or compensation to that witness. If such actions are still repeated then there must be some law which mandates forfeiting that person's right to ask any question to that witness thereafter.

I've also been asked as to how allotting more budget for the judiciary will help in improving it. Isn't it obvious that all the above initiatives will require infrastructure, appointment of staffs etc for which budget is an indispensable essential. Its a complete mockery that the very institution which is often quoted as the last hope for the exploited and the injured, is so neglected. The Govt. has to make a specific planned budget allotted to judiciary, much more than the present share it accords for it so that all the above aims are achieved in a time bound manner and the hope of common man is redeemed in the justice delivery mechanism. No nation which aspires to have a sound and corruption free governance can claim to achieve it without strengthening its judicial system first.

The readers must understand that there are several technical aspects which also require substantial focus for a holistic upgradation of our judiciary. The issues which have been discussed here are only a few of those. The discussion is much complex and multifaceted to be confined to a single write up. Hence readers are advised not to construe these factors as conclusive or exhaustive in determining the future of our justice delivery mechanism.

Justice in Jeopardy... Why ?

A very talented fellow blogger recently published an article titled "Justice in Jeopardy" wherein she has very lucidly pointed certain issues which concern the Indian judiciary. I intend to explain some of the issues raised in that article.

First things first. I'm by no means claiming that Indian judiciary is pristine or is under no requirement of significant upgradation and improvement. I'm nobody to dispute that reality since anyone who has had an experience with litigation in an Indian Court is likely to have had a vary harrowing experience, particularly in reference to the time consumed in arriving at a verdict. Also several eminent jurists have pointed several foibles in the justice delivery system of our country and I do not intend to contradict them. But what is essential in this context is that when we read or hear against our judicial system we, as responsible persons, must also strive to analyse the cause (s) behind those facts.

The article that I've mentioned starts with the hackneyed grievance that the wait for justice in India is always unduly protracted. Cases to get decided take an unbelievably long time. So much so that it defeats the very purpose of the verdict at times. Ever wondered what's the cause of that ? Any person who has read extensively regarding this issue will understand that this happens mainly due to shortage of Courts vis - a -vis a relative docket explosion. While the rate at which litigation are being initiated have gone up substantially, the number of Courts and Judges to decide them haven't seen a proportional increase. It is essential for us to know that there is something called the Judge - Population ratio. It denotes the number of judges per million (ten lakh) people in a country. In the USA they have ten times more judges per million people, than in India. The Indian Law Commission in its 120th Report recommended that the strength of judges per million population should be increased from 10.5 to 50 judges. The present judge strength in India is 14 judges per million (ten lakh) population (approx.). From these figures it is not difficult to understand the cause behind the present alarming rate of pendency of cases. With regard to subordinate judiciary, the Supreme Court had, in its judgement of 21st March, 2002, in All India Judges’ Association & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors., also directed that increase in the Judge strength from 10.5 per 10 lakh people to 50 judges per 10 lakh people should be effected and implemented within a period of five years in a phased manner to be determined and directed by the Union Ministry of Law.  Clearly the concerned Ministry has not lived up to the task. And the blame for large pendency of cases unfortunately goes to the judiciary.


 Now the budget. Ever wondered who controls the expenditure for building judicial infrastructure in the country ? Of course the Govt. You'll be surprised to know that less than 1 % is allocated to the judiciary in the State and Central Budget every year. In the Ninth Five year plan the Govt. set aside Rs 385 Crore for the judiciary and that works out to about 0.078 % of total expenditure plan. In the Tenth Five Year Plan, the allocation though increased to Rs 700 Crore, it still works out to a shocking 0.071 % of total plan expenditure. Its a complete mockery that the very institution which is often quoted as the last hope for the exploited and the injured, is so neglected. One of my friends recently pointed out to me his utter wonder, after becoming aware of these figures, at as to how the judiciary functions at all.

Despite all these hurdles, judiciary is not sitting quietly. Under the directives of the Hon'ble Supreme Court several Courts in different States are functioning as 'Evening Courts', beyond the normal day time functioning of Courts. Where focus is being put on taking up for hearing many old cases which are pending adjudication. More to this multiple drives are being regularly conducted by way of District Level, and State Level Lok Adalats where the Courts are taking extra steps to cause the parties to amicably settle their cases without further litigation. These steps are yielding quite promising results. But considering the mountain pendency figures, these efforts are unable to bring about any substantial change therein, for the public to realize that such endeavours are being made in the first place. After all there is a human limit to which Judges can give their efforts in disposing of so many cases. 

It has been further pointed out in the relevant write up, that a rich man can go to some foreign country under some false pretext while his lawyer keeps making appearances for him and on the other hand a poor man has no such liberty. I humbly need to dispute this statement as a misinformed generalization of the state of affairs. It is the law of this land that no person ought to be ordinarily forced to attend the Court proceeding, if his presence somewhere else is necessary, unless his attendance is really indispensable for such proceeding. e.g. in a hit and run case the witnesses need to identify the accused hence on each date of evidence the accused must be present even though he's on bail. But in a cheque bounce case, the evidence is mainly in form of documents, hence the parties can appear through their lawyer. Similarly in civil cases there is barely any need for the parties to personally appear on each and every date unless the proceeding demands so. Hence unlike what has been said,  a poor person too can appear through his lawyer, one appointed by him or by the State.

She has further, in her article, very rightly doubted the concept of true justice as a mere facade. It’s mainly because of the popular perception that law serves the interests of only the powerful and the privileged, while the un privileged suffer despite all the protection purported to be guaranteed to them by it. The anger is fixated on the high and the mighty who appear to be immune to the rigours of law. I'm afraid the cause of this anomaly is much complex, fundamental to our legal system than a mere allegation that justice is on sale for the rich and powerful. One must understand a country's judiciary is as potent and efficient as are it's a) Investigative Agencies and b) Witnesses. We have countless examples where witnesses have faltered in Court. If one goes and sees for himself, he is likely to discover several witnesses simply testifying before the Courts that they know nothing about the incident. Whereas they have given full statements before the investigating officer regarding their knowledge of the occurrence. So it's either the Police or the witness who lies. But in either scenario the Court is rendered with no other option but to set free the accused.

It has been lamented in the article that "Justice in this country can be cheaply bought or easily abused." It's necessary to know certain facts about the process of litigation before we judge the truth of that belief.

The law is set into motion when an FIR / complaint is registered by the Police.

The Police then goes to do investigation. During investigation it collects proofs, statements of witnesses etc that indicate the commission of the alleged offence.

Then on the combined basis of the complaint and the investigation it arraigns the suspects as accused persons and forwards them to the nearest Court of law, or

The Police then submits a final report ( in case it doesn't get any clue or evidence of the crime ) or in other cases submits charge sheet alongwith other documents.

If final report is submitted, the complainant can protest against it and pray to the Court to still take cognizance (proceeding with) of the offences despite the Police's final report. If the Court doesn't then the case is closed ( & the victim can appeal to higher Courts), but if it does listen to the complainant then it conducts its own inquiry and proceeds likewise.

When the accused is brought before the Couirt or he himself appears before it, the allegations are read over and explained to the him and he's asked whether he admits his guilt or not.

If he does then the Judge decides his punishment, but if he doesn't then trial commences.

The Court then summons the witnesses named by the Poilice who had stated during the investigations about to the guilt of the accused.

 Now depending upon the dimensions of a particular case, various categories of documents, witnesses, expert witnesses etc. are summoned by the Court for ultimate analysis of the truth.

After this process is over, the accused is given an opportunity to adduce evidence in his favour to rebut the prosecution evidence. Ultimately after hearing the final arguments the judge pronounces his judgment.

Now you think for yourself, as to how many different persons have a role to play in deciding the fate of a case. Police, witnesses, scientific experts, documents etc. Unless each of them is pristine and honest in his task, truth is bound to remain buried. 

Therefore the next time when one thinks that a Court has set free a guilty, or that justice has been cheaply bartered, think again, what actually was bartered. It was some witness who got scared or got greedy and decided not to tell the truth to the Court. Or the investigating officer who coerced someone to lie. The Court is not powerless in such situations, but the witness harassed must complain of the same to it.

The article also states that "we have judges.. with exceptions ofcourse, who have bartered their integrity for immoral and unethical benefits". Such a statement is likely to give an impression as if judges getting exposed for their corruption is an everyday affair. Now we all know that is not true. There are allegations but very sporadic.  Even if we assume that they do, a corrupt decision making process by a Court ultimately is of no real benefit to the person who seeks to gain from it, since the suffering party can always get that Court's decision overruled in appeal. 

The concerned article cites a sad example of a pregnant woman Kshama Chopra was killed when a BMW rammed the car she was travelling in. The accused was granted bail by submitting a bond of Rs 50,000. Bail has nothing to do with punishment. Therefore it's wrong to compare the value of life of a person with the surety / bail amount as it is only a security for his attendance in Court. If he dodges the law then not only that amount will be forfeited but also the Court can issue non bailable warrant against him and if he still doesn't appear then it can attach and sell off his property and compensate the victim, subject ofcourse to the proper law in this context. Unfortunately it's the law that has been written like that. In a hit and run case, the accused is most likely arraigned under Sections 279, 336, 337 or 304 A of IPC. Sadly all these sections are bailable offences. Hence the Court is bound to let off the accused on bail. It cannot set a large sum of money as bail amount since that'd be indirectly creating hardship for him to get bail in a bailable case. However regarding Kshama Chopra's case, I could opine better if I could know under what sections of law the accused was charged.

The article has doubted the independence of judiciary in view of the Kasab's case. Please remember that the independence of judiciary is always measured in its decision making process not in execution of its orders. Since technically, execution of it's orders is the duty of the executive. Furthermore it is indeed unfortunate and unfair to doubt the independence of our judiciary especially after it's relentless vigilance and vindication of public interest in the 2G scam and after exempting Vodafone from crores of rupees of tax payment to our Govt or sending SITs hunting for the corrupt and the wrong . Though I've a lot to say about the Kasab's case I humbly refrain from doing so since the highest Court of our land is seized with it's adjudication. There will be a time for my view on it and I'll surely give it then in retrosepct.

As far as the Judges of the Supreme Court, High Courts and other subordinate Courts are concerned I'm nobody to vouch for their integrity. All I can tell you that as subjects of constant public scrutiny, judges accept tremendous personal restrictions in their lives, that is often viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and they do so freely and willingly. They do not socialize as much as they wish to. Their whole life is spent avoiding places that shimmer with frolic and glamour. Restraint is an everyday indulgence. That's the cost they pay for they respect and authority they command in Courts. Taking stray examples of deviation and generalizing judges as hypocrites and arrogant is extremely sad. I've known judges, now retired, who have lived their life under so much financial difficulty, yet with their head held high due to the restraint and exemplary code of ethics that they practiced in their lives and in their profession. A simple tete - e tete' with them will leave you awestruck and in reverence of their wisdom. Let's not forget what the Courts of this country have done for us and our fundamental rights after independence. When there was widespread onslaught on cherished liberties by those drunk with power. Since I've pointed out the real source which could alter the fundamental problem of delay in case disposal, it wouldn't be out of context to remind ourselves that the Courts have and always will vindicate the stand of the common man. Despite all the discussed follies, judiciary remains the common man's last hope. No matter how much we criticize the judiciary, we'll still run to it when we face attack against our freedom, person, family or property, because deep down we know that things won't be the same there as they were in some other office or forum.

This article should not be construed as one written in an argumentative tenor against what has been written by my fellow blogger in her article "Justice in Jeopardy, rather it should be read as one written by an ardent believer in the goodness and fairness of our judicial system and a student of law who has a little first hand experience of the legal system.  

For related discussions read

The Conversation - II ((On Law & Justice ....)

The Conversation - III (On free speech, media trial & prejudice ) and

(On delays in justice, revelations about judicial process & more on free speech, role of media & prejudice... + A must watch Video)


WISH YOU A PROMISING AND HOPE INSPIRING 65TH INDEPENDENCE DAY.