Justice Can Be Influenced
The judiciary, and that also higher judiciary, has been very much in the news during the last few weeks.
First the Salman Khan case, where it takes the lower court 13 years to hold the actor guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in a hit and run case, but it takes the higher court only three hours to suspend the sentence and release him on bail. Then the Jayalalithaa case, where the trial court convicts the lady of possessing disproportionate assets and sentences her to four years imprisonment and Rs 100 crore fine on September 27, 2014 after the case dragged on for 18 years. The High Court disposes off the case on May11, 2015. The public prosecutor appointed at the eleventh hour says that he was not given an opportunity to present his case.
These are not the only cases that have created an impression in the public mind that the criminal justice system in this country is wealth and influence driven. Sanjay Dutt has been let out on parole on numerous occasions. Lalu Prasad is out on bail even after being convicted in a corruption case. Now Ramalinga Raju has also been released on bail. Some earlier cases that immediately come to mind are those of underworld don Babloo Srivastava, who was convicted for life term on July 3, 2006, whose appeal was heard by Delhi High Court on July 12, 2006 and who was acquitted on February 23, 2007. Ansal brothers were convicted for 2 year jail term on November 21, 2007, but secured bail on November 23, 2007 and finally the High Court reduced the jail term to one year on December 20, 2008.
These cases show that the rich and influential people either get bail after being accused of committing crime or are acquitted of all charges. There is nothing wrong on being released on bail. Bail and not jail, they say, is the principle on which the system of legal jurisprudence is based. If that is the principle, why is it that out of 3,85,135 jail population in the country on January 1, 2014, as many as 2,54,857 (66.2% of total inmates) were undertrial prisoners? A majority of them were inside because they were either denied bail or failed to post bail bond. A study done by the Law Commission of India on Law Relating to Arrest in November, 2000 showed that the percentage of undertrial prisoners in the country was unusually high and most of them were there because they were too poor to post bail or furnish securities.
What about the appeals, which in some cases are heard with speed, while in others it takes umpteen number of years for cases to be heard. On 31.3.2014, about 2.79 crore cases were pending with different courts in the country at the end of the first quarter of 2014. Out of these, 2,73,60,814 cases were pending with District and Subordinate Courts, 4,47,903 with High Courts and 65,970 with the Supreme Court. A large number of cases pending with higher courts are appeal cases.
All these cases and statistics merely prove what the Committee on Draft National Policy on Criminal Justice appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India had reported in July 2007: “An equally disturbing perception of the people is about the role the money and influence play in criminal justice administration. In common man’s perception, there are two standards of justice in the country, one for the rich and powerful and the other for the poor and underprivileged sections.”
The farcical working of the courts in this country with antiquated laws and procedures have been brilliantly shown in the recent national award winning Marathi film called “Court.” Despite all the material that exists in the reports of commissions and committees and also films (even those with catchphrase like ‘tareekh pe tareekh’), the justice system has remained one of the most neglected areas of governance in the country. It appears that good governance has remained merely a political slogan.
While talking of politics, a side issue concerning Jayalalithaa’s case needs to be discussed. Immediately after the acquittal order became public, the PM Narendra Modi was the first political leader to congratulate her on her release. Whatever might have been the political considerations behind this move, a question that needs to be asked is: was it proper for the Prime Minister of the country to congratulate a person who till a few hours ago was a convict in a corruption case? The High Court’s judgement is not the end of the case. The Karnataka government or the petitioner can appeal against the judgement in the apex court.
When a congratulatory message is sent, it stands not merely for courteous behavior; it also indicates a feeling of sympathy for the person who is being congratulated. Along with Jayalalithaa, the Prime Minister also appears to have heaved a sigh of relief on her being acquitted. It appears that he had carefully considered what Edmund Burke had advised long ago: “The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations.”
