क्‍या मैं तुम्‍हें सोनिया गान्‍धी लगता हूं?

व्‍यंग

क्‍या मैं तुम्‍हें सोनिया गान्‍धी लगता हूं?

कल मेरी एक पत्रकार से भेंट हो गयी। मुझे कहने लगा कि मैं तुम्हारा साक्षात्कार लेना चाहता हूँ। मैंने कहा, तुझे कोई और नहीं मिला? मैं कौन सा इतना बड़ा नेता हूँ कि तू मेरा साक्षात्कार लेगा? पर वो न माना। कहने लगा देखो, बड़े-बड़े लोग मेरे पीछे पड़े रहते हैं कि मेरा साक्षात्कार लो और मैं मना कर देता हूँ और एक तुम हो जो मुझे मना कर रहे हो। कहने लगा कि मैं तुम्हें एक बड़ा नेता बना दूंगा। तुम्हें मशहूर कर दूंगा। तुम्‍हें अमर कर दूंगा।

मैंने कहा कि मुझे जीते जी अमर नहीं होना है।

कहने लगा कि तुम अलग किस्‍म के पाजी आदमी हो। एक बार साक्षात्‍कार देकर तो देखो।

जब वह मेरा पीछा नहीं छोड़ रहा था तो मैंने भी खीज कर हां कर दी।

वह कहने लगा कि देश और दुनिया की समस्‍याओं पर तुम्‍हारे विचार मैं बाद में लूंगा। पहले तुम अपना परिचय दे दो।

तुम्‍हारा नाम?

झोंपू राम।

यह भी कोई नाम हुआ?

फिर तुम्‍हें पूछ कर अपना नाम रखूं?

पर यह पड़ा कैसे?

मेरे माता-पिता ने रख दिया। मैं तब बहुत छोटा था। उनसे तब बहस भी नहीं कर सकता था। फिर उन दिनों टीवी और फिल्‍में भी तो नहीं थीं कि आज के बच्‍चों की तरह मैं अपने मां-बाप से बहस करना सीख जाता।

पिता का नाम?

गड़बड़लाल

यह भी कोई नाम हुआ?

भई उन्‍होंने मुझ से पूछ कर रखना था अपना नाम? तुम्‍हारे पिताजी ने तुम से पूछ कर रखा था अपना नाम?

पर इसका मतलब क्‍या हुआ?

उन्‍होंने की होगी कोई गड़बड़।

माताजी का नाम?

कैटरीना

कैटरीना कैफ?

नहीं केवल कैटरीना।

यार दुनिया कैटरीना को अपनी प्रेयसी-बीवी बनाना चाहता है और तू उसे अपना मां बता रहा है।

अब क्‍या अपनी मां का नाम भी तुम्‍हारी मर्जी का रखूं?

तुम्‍हारी उम्र क्‍या है?

यह किस लिये पूछ रहे हो? कोई रिश्‍ते की बात चलानी है क्‍या? पर मैं बता दूं कि मैं पहले ही शादीशुदा हूं।

भई तुम तो लड़कियों की तरह अपनी उम्र छुपाना चाहते हो।

आजकल लड़के और लड़की में फर्क ही क्‍या है?

तुम करते क्‍या हो?

केवल राजनीति।

तुम्हारी आय कितनी है?

तुम्‍हें बता कर क्‍या मैं अपनी जान को जोखिम में डाल लूं क्‍या?

ऐसा क्‍यों?

भई कोई डाकू पीछे लग जायेगा।

तुम आयकर तो देते होगे। उसका ब्‍यौरा ही दे दीजिये।

यह मेरा निजी मामला है। मैं तुम्‍हें नहीं बता सकता। कल को मेरे राजनीतिक विरोधी इसे मेरे विरूद्ध इस्‍तेमाल करेंगे।

तुम विदेश यात्रा बहुत करते रहते हो। बताओ कहां-कहां का भ्रमण और क्‍यों कर आये हो?

यह मैं नहीं बता सकता। इससे मेरी जान को खतरा हो सकता हैा

मुझे पता चला है कि तुम पीछे विदेश गये थे अपना ईलाज करवाने। कहां गये थे, तुम्‍हें क्‍या बीमारी थी, उस पर कितना खर्च हुआ और यह सब किसने वहन किया?

यह मेरा निजी मामला है। मैं कुछ नहीं बता सकता।

भई तुम एक लोकप्रिय नेता हो। जनता को तुम्‍हारे बारे में उत्‍सुकता रहती है, चिन्‍ता रहती है। वह सब जानना चाहते हैं?

यह सब बताने से मेरी निजी सुरक्षा के लिये खतरा पैदा हो सकता है।

तुम्‍हारा धर्म क्‍या है?

मेरा धर्म-वर्म कुछ नहीं है। यह भी मेरा निजी मामला है। मैं नहीं बता सकता।

तो क्‍या तुम सोनिया गान्‍धी हो?

मुझे गुस्‍सा आ गया। मैंने कहा, ‘’क्‍या मैं तुम्‍हें सोनिया गान्‍धी लगता हूं?

मैं गुस्‍से में उठकर चला गया।

—   अम्‍बा चरण वशिष्‍ठa

Definite design in Congress defiance - Taking Election Commission for a ride

After Khurshid, Beni Prasad Verma

Definite design in Congress defiance

They take EC for electoral joy ride

Undoubtedly, there is a conscious and definite design in Congress defiance of the Election Commission (EC).

The EC announced the matter of defiance of its authority by the Law Minister Salman Khurshid  as closed following the latter’s regret. Hardly had the sound died down that another Union Minister Beni Prasad Verma took up the thread to adopt the same rebellious posture against the Model Code of Conduct by committing the same offence for which Mr. Khurshid was censured: promising a bounty of reservation to Muslims on religion basis.

Reading between the lines, it becomes amply clear that the whole exercise is being orchestrated with a clear-cut well-designed strategy towards a definite electoral end. Till the polling in his wife’s assembly constituency was over Mr. Khurshid was at his defiance best even after he was censored for violating the Model Code of Conduct. The cause was so great, dear and sacred for him that Mr. Khurshid was too willing to attain martyrdom with a smile on his face declaring that he will continue with his crusade “even if they (EC) hang him”. The EC censured Khurshid. When defiance continued, EC complained to the President about Khurshid’s conduct and the President referred to matter to the Prime Minister who kept his cool and silence as usual. When the matter came to a boil and after the polling in his wife’s constituency was over the defiant Khurshid prostrated before the EC saying he had full respect for this institution of the Constitution and apologized. The EC too responded graciously and pardoned the fallen guy.

Now Union Steel Minister Beni Prasad Verma donned the Khurshid mantle to attain martyrdom for the same cause of appealing to the electoral constituency on communal lines promising reservation to Muslims on religion basis because polling in his area had as yet to take place. He too became as defiant and valiant as was his colleague Khurshid. The same story was likely to be repeated. After receipt of his explanation Mr. Verma would too be censured. In the meantime, polling in his area would be over. Then there would be left no electoral justification for continuing that crusade. He too would reiterate his unqualified respect for the EC, prostrate before it and seek apology which would be granted readily and generously. The matter would end there and then with both EC and Mr. Verma declaring the chapter closed. It will be a happy ending, like any Indian film where after all the gruesome chase, violence and drama the story ends with both the warring families expressing regrets, embracing each other and the film hero-heroine waving triumphantly in ecstasy. But here, in the end, the EC will end up as a villain who had harassed ‘innocent’ politicians for no fault of theirs.

If political parties are taking EC for an electoral joy ride for pleasure, it alone is to be blamed. Politicians know nobody is going to crucify them for their heinous crime of polluting the holy Ganges of election which is the very lifeline of our democracy. The election watchdog does howl and growl at aggressors into its territory of law and order but it has failed to grievously bite deep into the flesh of any intruder to foil the attempt and intent of others to follow.

                                                                         www.acvashishtha.com

PM & PMO

PM & PMO

amba charan vashishth

The Supreme Court of India, while indicting the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) on 31 January, 2012 for an inordinate delay in taking a decision on the representation filed by Janata Party president Dr Subramaniam Swamy seeking sanction to prosecute the then telecom minister Mr A Raja, was very condescending to Prime Minister Mr Manmohan Singh though it stopped short of censuring him. The SC said: “If the Prime Minister had been apprised of the factual and legal position regarding the representation made by Swamy, he would have surely taken appropriate decision and would not have allowed the matter to linger (on) for a period of more than one year.” It also said: “By the very nature of the office held by the Prime Minister, he was not expected to personally look into minute details of each case placed before him and has to depend on his advisers and other officers.”

Yet, the point is: whose office is the PMO? If it is of the Prime Minister run by his officials and advisers, the Prime Minister should be in full control and should have the final word. This should make him squarely responsible for everything ~ right or wrong ~ happening in the PMO. Despite the SC being lenient with the Prime Minister, it is a fact that Mr Singh had dragged his feet far too long about taking a decision on Mr Swamy’s petition and he cannot shirk his responsibility just because the country’s topmost court has let him off lightly. Otherwise, it would be like blaming the grandparents and not the parents for spoiling the child.

The PMO is manned by persons handpicked by the PM who enjoy his full confidence. Naturally, they cannot have a professional identity independent of him and be not answerable to the PM. The petition to the PM had not been made by just anybody but Mr Swamy, who is the chief of a national party. Also, the petition did not pertain to a minion in any ministry but a senior Cabinet colleague of the PM. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the PM to take the matter seriously. He should have made his officials come up in the shortest possible time with full facts, legal position and precedents, including relevant court judgments, to arrive at a well-considered decision after applying his mind. It was his responsibility, and his alone, to have done so and not that of the babus. Since the matter concerned a senior Cabinet colleague, the Prime Minister should have been all the more prompt.

It is now common knowledge that our political leaders, even those holding official positions, employ writers to formulate their speeches. Even if the speech has been outsourced, it is the person that reads it who that receives bouquets or brickbats. If such a speech invites penal action, it is not the speechwriter who is taken to task but the person who read it out.  One needs to understand that each lawmaker in this country holding an important public office, such as the PM, chief ministers and their ministers, has a number of advisers, including secretary-level bureaucrats and other hand-picked consultants to assist him/her. In addition, they have the option to consult the law ministry on any issue. The PM or a minister is not bound by the advice provided by bureaucrats and reserves his unbridled right to apply his mind to arrive at an independent decision after considering all points of view. A Prime Minister is considered a “primus inter pares” ~ first among equals ~ yet he has the prerogative to differ with his ministers and the right to reject their advice.

Authority rests with the person who takes the decisions and not with his advisers because ultimately, the line of responsibility deems that how it should be. The current UPA government has mastered the art of snatching the credit for anything that has gone well and starting a blame game for all that goes wrong. The fact remains that till the eve of the country’s comptroller and auditor-general (CAG) presenting its report on the 2G spectrum scam, the PM and Congress president Mrs Sonia Gandhi had been shielding Mr A Raja. Only a few days after Mr Raja’s resignation, at a CAG conference, the PM called upon the CAG to distinguish between “wrongdoing” and “genuine errors”. Mr Manmohan Singh had also tried to wriggle out of his liability arising out of allowing untold scams to be perpetrated under his nose by citing “coalition dharma”.

Perhaps it will not be out of context to recall that Lal Bahadur Shastri resigned as the country’s railway minister in 1956 owning moral responsibility for a railway accident in Tamil Nadu that had caused 144 deaths despite Shastri not driving the train at the time. Surely, even PM understands that the question is not of legality but of morality.                        

(The writer is a Delhi-based political analyst and commentator)

Published in  on February 22, 2012

सामायिकी --: मनमोहन सिंह का मुखर मौन == नैतिकता के नए मानदंड

सामायिकी

मनमोहन सिंह का मुखर मौन

नैतिकता के नए मानदंड

हमारे प्रधान मंत्री डॉ मनमोहन सिंह राजनीतिक आवश्यकतानुसार मौन धारण कर लेते हैं। वह बहुत समझदार महान व्यक्ति हैं।  भारत की मौलिक समझ-सूझबूझ उनकी रग-रग में  समाई पड़ी है। वह भारतीय ज्ञान के ज्ञाता हैं। देश की लोकोक्तियों का अनुसरण करते हैं और उन पर खरे उतरते हैं। पंजाबी कहावत है कि बूढ़ा सठिया गया है और लोगों के बर्तन उठा कर अपने घर ले आता है (पर इतना समझदार अवश्य है कि वह अपने घर के बर्तन दूसरों के घर नहीं छोड़ आता।) वह मुड़-मुड़ कर खैरात अपनों को ही बांटते हैं, दूसरों को नहीं।

वह यह मानते हैं कि एक चुप और सौ सुख। पंजाबी में कहते हैं कि वह गुजझी (पीछे से छुपी) मार करता है।

पुराने जमाने कि बात सुनाते हैं कि एक व्यक्ति अपने गाँव के मौलवी के पास गया और पूछा कि उसकी गाय यदि मौलवी का खेत चर जाए और बर्बाद कर दे तो? मौलवी तुरंत बोले यह तो बड़ा अपराध है और तुम्हें तो इस पर कड़ी सज़ा मिलनी चाहिए। व्यक्ति ने आगे पूछा कि यदि आपकी गाय मेरे खेत का नुक्सान कर दे तो? अपना न्याय सुनाते हुये मौलवी बोले, तब और बात है। ऐसा ही न्याय हमारे प्रधान मंत्री और कांग्रेस अध्यक्ष श्रीमति सोनिया गांधी करते हैं।

जब तो किसी ग़ैर-कांग्रेसी नेता पर लोकायुक्त कोई अपना फतवा सुनाता है तो हमारे प्रधान मंत्री व उनकी प्रणेता श्रीमति सोनिया गांधी नैतिकता की दुहाई देकर कहती हैं कि उसे तुरंत त्यागपत्र दे देना चाहिए और उसे जेल भेज देना चाहिए। कर्नाटक मैं तत्कालीन मुख्य मंत्री येदुईरप्पा के लिए उन्होंने यही नैतिक मानदंड रखा। पर जब कर्नाटक के उसी लोकायुक्त ने उनके विदेश मंत्री एस एम कृष्णा के विरुद्ध उसी प्रकार का मुक़द्दमा दायर कर देने का आदेश दिया तो डॉक्टर मनमोहन सिंह और श्रीमति गांधी अपनी नैतिकता कि ऊंचाई भूल गए। तब उनके त्यागपत्र की मांग पर मौन हो गये। उन्हों ने समझ लिया कि एक चुप और सौ सुख।

जब दिल्ली के लोकायुक्त ने दिल्ली के एक मंत्री चौहान को दोषी पाया और उसे पदच्युत कर देने के लिए कहा तो ये दोनो महानुभाव लोकायुक्त की ही उस सिफ़ारिश पर बड़े जज बन बैठे और उसके निर्णय पर अपना महान नैतिक निर्णय सुना दिया कि चौहान निर्दोष हैं और उन्हें ससम्मान अपने गौरवशाली पद को सुशोभित करते रहना चाहिए।

जम्मू-कश्मीर के एक कांग्रेसी शिक्षा मंत्री हैं जो प्रदेश में शिक्षार्थियों को शिक्षा के साथ-साथ नैतिकता का पाठ भी पढाते है। हाल ही में उनके विरुद्ध यह साबित हो गया कि उन्हों ने अपने बच्चे को पास करवाने के लिए अपने पद का दुरुपयोग किया। मंत्री महोदय ने अपनी नैतिक ज़िम्मेदारी कबूल करते हुये पद से त्यागपत्र दे दिया। पर कांग्रेस ने उससे भी ऊंची नैतिकता का परिचय देते हुये उन मंत्री महोदेय का त्यागपत्र ठुकरा दिया और अपने पद पर बने रह कर बच्चों को बराबर नैतिकता का पाठ पढ़ाते रहने का निर्देश दिया। एक मर्यादित-अनुशासित महानुभाव के नाते उन्हों ने भी पार्टी हाई कमान का फरमान सिरमाथे लेते हुये पद पर बने रह कर पहले से भी अधिक ज़ोर-शोर से अपने व पार्टी के महान आदर्शों पर चलते हुये प्रदेश और जनता की निरंतर सेवा करते रहने का पुनः प्रण ले लिया।

उधर केन्द्रीय कानून मंत्री सलमान खुर्शीद ने मुसलमानों को आरक्षण का प्रलोभन देकर चुनाव आचार संहिता का उल्लंघन कर कानून की धज्जियां उड़ाते हुये संविधान की एक सममाननीय संस्था चुनाव आयोग की खूब खिल्ली उड़ाई। उसके अधिकारों चुनौती भी दी। यहाँ तक कह दिया कि यदि चुनाव आयोग उन्हें सूली पर भी लटका दे तो भी वह यह करते हुये खुशी-खुशी शहीदी प्राप्त करने से पीछे नहीं हटेंगे। चुनाव आयोग ने खुर्शीद की शिकायत राष्ट्रपति महोदया से कर दी जिसे उन्हों ने प्रधान मंत्री जी को कार्यवाही के लिए भेज दिया। सलमान खुर्शीद के आचरण पर सारे देश में हो-हँगामा हुआ पर हमारे प्रधान मंत्री थे कि उनके कान पर जूं तक न रींगी। कानून बनाने वाले उनके ही एक वरिष्ठ मंत्री द्वारा कानून की पीठ में छुरा घोंप देने की घटना भी उनकी ज़ुबान का ताला न तोड़ सकी। अंततः चुपचाप उन्हों ने मंत्री महोदय से अपने आचरण पर चुनाव आयोग से क्षमा मँगवा दी। चुनाव आयोग ने भी मामला यहीं समाप्त कर दिया। वैसे भी बात को आगे बढ़ाने का कोई तुक अब बचा नहीं था। सलमान ने और पार्टी ने मुसलमानों तक अपना संदेश पहुंचाना था वह पहुंचा दिया था। उसका उद्देश्य भी पूरा हो चुका था। इस प्रकार कांग्रेस व सरकार ने अपनी खाल बचा ली।  

पर प्रश्न तो फिर भी रह गया? क्या इस प्रकार कांग्रेस व मनमोहन सरकार ने न्याय का यह नया मानदंड स्थापित कर दिया है? क्या भविष्य में कोई कितना भी बड़ा अपराध क्यों न कर दे, उसे भी क्षमा मांग लेने पर सलमान खुर्शीद की तरह ही सूली पर लटकने से बचा  लिया जाएगा और उसे मुआफ कर दिया जाया करेगा?    

Lest the people kill the law that kills justice

Lest the people

 kill the law that kills justice

In August 2010, two young girls from high profile families had their unchallenged right to drink, to drink till they lost their senses. Then, they had the right to drive in that inebriated state and to enter into a race between themselves on a road near the residence of Haryana chief minister in Chandigarh. Under intoxication and in their zeal to excel the other they struck down a motor-cyclist shuttling the two cousins – one elder, the other in his teens – into the air. Then they had the sense and the right to flee from the scene of the accident. For them it was not their duty to help their unfortunate victims. Had they been kind enough to try to extend human help, perhaps, a life could have been saved. Then they had the right to elope and hide themselves for about twenty hours. They had to surrender only after it was no longer possible for them to continue to escape the police dragnet. But, in the process, they did exercise their right to evade a medical test to prove that they were drunk at the time of the accident.

“Nobody killed Jessica”

“Nobody killed Jessca.”  That was the heading The Times of India gave to its report when the Delhi sessions judge acquitted the persons accused of murdering the model Jessica Lall. The heading had a logic. Had anybody murdered her, he/they would have been punished? It was only on appeal that the accused were punished.

Arushi murder mocks at our law

The much hyped Arushi murder case is mocking at the kind of criminal jurisprudence we have in India and at the investigating agencies which have during the last more than about two years failed to nail the culprit despite having thrown out various theories. At the end the CBI filed a closure report with the court stating that her parents remained suspect but the investigating agency had no proof. When the court refused to entertain the closure report, a case has been filed against her parents and now CBI claims it has proof.

Guilty who?

We have hundreds and thousands of cases of murders and other crimes where the investigating agencies either fail to identify the culprit or fail to prove him/her guilty. The courts give out the verdict of “not guilty”.  Everybody admits – the courts, the prosecuting agency and the defence – that the heinous crime of murder, rape, theft or the like had been committed but the accused was not guilty. Then who did commit this crime? Surprisingly nobody – neither the investigating agency, nor the prosecution agency, nor the defence, nor the courts – comes out with truth. The crime gets buried under the debris of our system of law. Whose duty is it to nail the culprit? By acquitting the person accused and not identifying the person who actually did it, we are only creating a situation where slowly and steadily people will gradually start losing faith in the system of justice in which the guilty gets scot free and the aggrieved is denied justice.

A strange law

Our law gives a person the right to commit a crime and at the same time, paradoxically, the right to claim and prove his ‘innocence’. A person has the right to voluntarily surrender before the police make a statement before a police officer and even before a magistrate confessing his crime, stating that he is doing so of his own will without any extraneous pressure or influence. This happens mostly when in the heat of the moment a person commits a crime on instant provocation. Then he repents and wishes to confess his crime and seek justice. But as days pass by, he has the right to resile from his statement and to claim innocence giving the impression as if his earlier statement before the police and the magistrate had been made under duress. The police and courts then are reduced to institutions of no significance and no consequence, unreliable and unbelievable because a statement before them has no legal sanction to convict on that confession. 

Our native system of justice

Our modernists may laugh at our native, primitive law yet that was more effective and did usher real justice. There were hardly doubts about the quality and quantity of justice.

We have heard of the saying “Look, there is a straw in the beard of the thief” (Dekho, chor ki dadhi mein tinka). A number of suspects who were suspected to have committed the theft were brought before the qazi. None of them was confessing to have committed the crime. Suddenly, the qazi shouted, “”Dekho, chor ki dadhi mein tinka” . The person who had actually committed the theft immediately rubbed his beard to shake off the straw. And there he was. He was the thief and given punishment.

Similarly, a raja was faced with a piquant situation. Two women claimed the one newly born baby as their own. The raja was at a loss to decide who the real mother was. There were no DNA tests those days. An idea struck him. He ordered that the baby be cut into two halves and one each given to both the mothers. The real mother immediately started bewailing and praying, “My lord, give the child to her. I will be content seeing my baby live and grow up with her”. The raja thus could find who the real mother was. He immediately ordered the child to be handed over to the bewailing mother.

We certainly cannot have such primitive ways of dispensing justice. Yet, we can do use it to enlighten our path to dispensing real justice.  

Tells truth to lawyer, Denies in court

When an accused goes to a pleader to engage him for his defence, he narrates, truly and faithfully, in bits and pieces the whole story of the commission of the crime. It is only after putting some counter-questions and seeking clarifications that the lawyer works out the defence strategy.  It is on the basis of the loopholes in the statements of the prosecution and defence witnesses as also legal arguments that a criminal gets out of the clutches of law and brags about his ‘innocence’. He thus puts the law and his accusers in the dock as the villains who had unnecessarily harassed him and harmed his reputation.

Pores in law

About 50 years back, a patwari was caught red-handed accepting a bribe of  Rs. 100 from a person. During the trial, his defence lawyer asked the thanedar, who had arrested him for the crime at the spot, whether he had conducted a search of the complainant’s pocket who claimed to have had given the hundred rupee note marked by the police. The thanedar said no; there was no need, he argued, because he recovered that very currency note from the possession of the patwari. The defence lawyer retorted, “It is here you committed a wrong and became a party to the conspiracy against my client (patwari)”. How? the court asked. “My Lord”, the lawyer explained, “The complainant knew my client. He went to my client and asked whether he had a change for Rs. one hundred? My client said ‘yes’. On this the complainant gave him a Rs. one hundred note given by the police and in return got 10 Rs. ten notes in exchange. Had the thanedar searched the person of the complainant, he would have recovered 10 Rs..ten notes. My client has been falsely implicated as per a conspiracy and thus trapped.” The court acquitted the patwari giving him the benefit of doubt.

Whom did the law favour — only the criminal and not the innocent?

Lest a bad precedent

Long back, there was a story of a British judge in The Indian Express. A judge from the balcony of his house witnessed a murder being committed before his own eyes. Incidentally, that very case was put up before him for trial. The judge was astonished to see that the police had hauled up a person other than the one he had seen committing the crime. The police made out a very strong case against the accused and the judge was left with no alternative but to order the accused to be hanged.

This situation pricked the conscience of the judge. One moment he thought of transferring the case to another judge offering to appear himself as a witness to save the innocent man. Then it struck to him that he would be setting a bad precedent. Tomorrow, he thought, a corrupt judge could emulate his example and volunteer, like him, to save a guilty person. Therefore, the judge convicted the accused and sentenced him to death. Let an innocent man, he said to himself, be hanged lest a bad precedent is created.

It is the same system of criminal jurisprudence we are following in India.

There are innumerable similar instances where the process of law has been subverted by tricks of the trade and the accused have been ‘honourably acquitted’ even after committing heinous crimes.

Terror cases fail in courts

One of the reasons why cases against militants, terrorists, Naxalites, Maoists and the like fail in courts is the sense of terror the dreaded accused strike in the minds of eye-witnesses. If they spill the beans against the hot heads, they and their families are in far serious reprisals. This makes eye-witnesses keep their mouth shut. This situation provides the culprits the right to claim that police had harassed them for no fault of theirs although they were innocent.

Helps the rich, harasses the poor

According to unconfirmed reports, about 2 lakh persons are languishing in various jails of the country without trial for years together. One Machung Lalung was released after detention for more than 50 years from Assam jail waiting for his trial and that also on the intervention of a civil rights group. A whole life of an innocent was thus sacrificed at the altar of our law

There are thousands of under-trials from poor families languishing in jails for years together because they cannot afford to secure bail as they have no money with themselves or with their relatives to present personal sureties/bonds desired by courts.

On the other hand, we have numerous cases of elite, high profile and well-connected individuals charged with heinous crimes either getting interim bails or bails immediately after their arrest. In the alternative, we have cases where accused instantly complain of chest pain, heart or other serious ailments immediately after their arrest to evade grilling by police and get themselves admitted to five-star private wards in expensive hospitals at the expense of the government or at their own. Later events make it appear as if their ailment is nothing else but their arrest. The moment they are released on bail, they are hail and hearty attending to their normal routine. The latest is the case of the Satyam Computers fame CEO Ramalinga Raju who was shifted to a hospital the day he was arrested and remained there in the posh hospital till released on bail. When released, he straight went home and not to a hospital. It is a different matter that his bail was later cancelled by the Supreme Court.

Taking law into own hands

This system of law is not promoting the cause of justice. It is hindering the process of justice – helping the criminal and tormenting the innocent. That is why every other day we come across news where people beat up – and even lynch – a person they catch hold of having committed a murder, killed pedestrians in an accident, raped a woman or even a small time thief. People have lost faith that justice will be done in the normal course and in time. That is why they prefer to dispense justice themselves and instantly.

It is time our politicians and those involved in dispensing justice put their heads together and attune our law to the reality and needs of the present Indian situation, lest people take the law into their own hands to kill the law that kills justice.

NOTE:  This piece may be used by newspapers and magazines free but they must mention the source: www.acvashishtha.com

Copyright: www.acvashishtha.com