Is the judicial system built to deliver ‘complete justice’, or is it just present to interpret the law? Who does the common man turn to?
Photo Credits: EDIT main_1
The last month brought out points to really ponder over. The all pervading question – whither justice?
The Background:The Bombay High Court last month acquitted Salman Khan in the infamous hit and run case of 2002. The reason ostensibly was – the prosecution could not garner adequate proof against the actor to substantiate a) whether it was he who was driving the car and b) even if he was driving – whether he was drunk.
I do not want to go into the case details by now a household story but only take this as a model to understand our judicial requirements on the one hand and the legal system which offers services towards these requirements. My points concern a) the investigation apparatus and b) the adjudicating mechanism
Our investigation apparatus: The accident occurred one early morning of September 2002. Within hours an FIR was filed by the PSO (Private Security Officer) who was also a passenger. Then followed the investigation and finally charges were filed. The charges were essentially rash and negligent driving causing culpable homicide not amounting to murder by an act with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death.
The PSO dutifully filed the FIR in the local police station and had consistently been maintaining that the actor himself was driving the vehicle. The second occupant – a friend of the actor just mysteriously vanished in thin air soon after the accident. Also is not known why so much time was allowed to the actor to present himself for a blood test for ascertaining alcohol levels in his system. The investigation went on for 11 years. The trial court in May 2015 sentenced Khan to five years rigorous imprisonment. The actor went into appeal with the help of the best lawyers of the land and the High Court acquitted him of all charges and set him free.
What is intriguing is: What took the police and the prosecution 11 long years to conduct the investigation, and in the end come up with a rag tag result with gaping holes commented upon by the High Court? What took the trial court another 2 years for the trial and pronunciation of the order? When the High Court summarily dismissed the statements of the PSO – why did it not care to spell out why they found these statements “unreliable”? By what stroke of efficiency did the final acquittal come within just six months?
So the point is should there be no accountability on the police and the prosecution mechanism to deliver its task within a certain period of time. What are the deterrents for delivering non quality? Yet again one was treated to the spectacle of the Mumbai Police Chief claiming he had all the evidence in the Sheena murder case and within “two days” would solve the case. Two months have gone by and the buck goes on being passed. In this case the all important “money angle” was never touched – when it was so obvious right from the start – the arrest of the alleged kingpin was finally made after two months – by that time I am sure all “arrangements” of evidences would have suitably been sorted out. Where do all these add up? The point is the law does not apply to the rich and the powerful excepting when there is a “deal” attached to it.
The adjudicating mechanism: We have 24 High Courts and over 400 District Courts and under them thousands of magistrates’ courts. There are about 5000 judges in the system and direct and indirect workforce of around 10 lakhs not counting the bar. Just consider the cost of running this huge behemoth.
What alternative does a common citizen have – other than paying up? If the citizen is unhappy with the governments’ medical care – he can go to a private nursing home, – but if he gets no justice from the judiciary – whom does he go to? Is the judiciary responsible to anybody? If yes is it responsible for just interpretation of the law or is it responsible comprehensibly for ensuring timely justice for the citizen particularly the weaker sections who cannot afford powerful lawyers?
Under Article 142 of our Constitution the Supreme Court has the power to do “complete justice”, not merely stop at “interpretations of the law”. What then stands in its way to see that this “complete justice” is done?
In the Salman Khan case – I completely agree if the prosecution’s case is rickety, the case cannot stand – but should not the Court instruct the prosecution to come up with its answers on all of those infirmities within a time frame? If he was not the culprit – should the investigation not be directed to find out who the culprit was?
The road forward: I do not think there can be any agenda more important than to restore “confidence in the system” in the minds of the common man. Judicial reforms I think should be the prime agenda point in this.
My take here is ensure more transparency, assignments of time limits in investigations, trials, passing of orders and implementation of the sentence as also accountability for non-quality in deliveries. In the words of Nelson Mandela, “..in the end we must remember that no amount of rules or their enforcement will defeat those who have justice on their side!”
Binayak Datta is a senior chartered accountant and a corporate consultant. He is also a visiting lecturer at prestigious educational institutions across Goa
