|
|
||
|
In
a democracy like India, why is the judiciary above social Scrutiny? |
||
|
I
have to confess that I am a wee bit confused about the justice system of
our country. I really don’t know if we have judges who are supposed to
interpret the law and then deliver verdicts or have they, thanks to the
ineptness of the system, become commentators on society and at times
believers in the idea that they can run the country. I am not aware of
the shenanigans that go into meting out justice or even concerned about
judicial appointments but what bothers me is that at times justice is
its own enemy. So much so that over the last few years, the same ladies
and gentlemen who have sat on various judicial benches have become the
worst critics of the justice system once they demit office. I worry when
I see hapless traders being thrown out of the their workplaces while the
government and judges score brownie points trying to outdo each other. I
am worried when the government uses the judiciary to deflect attention
from its accountability and when the judiciary thinks that judges can
replace the elected representatives. I
worry when I see people with nothing to do with certain cases go to jail
while the actual perpetrator goes scot-free. I respect India’s justice
system. I believe it is the only thing we have going for us; so why
would the judiciary want to shake my faith in it? And millions like me.
I cannot fathom why a trial for bomb blasts should take 13 years and
then the same judicial system comment on the municipal corporation’s
lackadaisical attitude. Take the recent case of the sealing drive in
Delhi of commercial properties. These are buildings that came up in
front of everyone’s eyes. I am sure even some judges may have seen
them on their way to some inauguration or the other. These came up
perhaps in gross violation of the law. But then why should only one
party pay for it? What happens to all those people responsible for
creating a system, which, even today, engenders corruption and
deception? The
police is a convenient tool, both for the executive and the judiciary,
and their competence at policing is often eroded by them blaming the
justice system: something that we have seen ever so often. There are
rumours about the justice system but we can’t talk about it as it may
be contempt. But this is my concern. Why should the judiciary be above
social scrutiny? Eminent international jurists like Lord Denning have
argued for a transparent and accountable justice system. I am sure we
have one but then why are we afraid to critique it? What is it so
secretive in a democracy that must be protected so vigorously? The
judiciary’s appointment and compensation package needs to be
overhauled, but any suggestion is deemed as interference by the
executive and is never entertained. Many ailments of our judicial system
are self-inflicted. It is true that the best people no longer join the
bench. They prefer to stay in practice. It is equally true that the
compensation our judges receive is shameful. They do far more than what
they get in return. And no Lutyens bungalow can compensate for food on
the table. And this competence issue reflects in some courts. There are
some judges who are terribly bright and ensure rapid resolution of cases
while some take their time. In the process, the system gets even
weakened. I was delighted when the present Chief Justice of India, upon
taking over, said that the criminal justice system needs overhauling. It
really does. I cannot understand how Bina Ramani goes to jail and Manu
Sharma stays out running a restaurant. And here, once again, I must
confess it is not about legalese. Justice must also be seen to be done.
Which at least in Jessica Lal’s case it has not. It
is this very justice system that cleaned up Delhi’s air with the
introduction of cng. But what surprises me is that it is the same system that
allows the development we are seeing in the South-Central Ridge in
Delhi: where we’ll soon see super luxury malls. Again, it is not about
laws and their meaning. It is about creating public confidence. And
that, I guess, has begun to erode. This
is where we as a nation need to ring the alarm bells. We are seeing
routine clashes between the legislature and the judiciary: something we
don’t need especially when almost every other institution in this
country has collapsed under the burden of corruption and anarchy. We
cannot afford to have our courtrooms exude confrontation and something
needs to be done about this. As a citizen, every time I hear the court
rapping the government, I worry as to who is really in charge because,
say what you might, the courts cannot run the country. Activism in the
judiciary must be replaced with sagacity. Today,
we have a situation which is typical of what George Bernard Shaw said:
“When whales fight, shrimp are eaten”. The fodder is the citizen
when he or she should actually be the recipient of justice! (Suhel
Seth is managing partner, Counselage, Source : Outlook |
||
DREAD 