We, the Donkeys
Days turn into months, months into years and years dribble into eternity. Lives of those who seek justice and wait anxiously for the word from the ultimate Institution of Justice seem to have gone all awry, twisted by the queer turns of fate, crushed beyond recognition by the grinds of time, with the faint glimmer of hope all set to fade away. Those are souls that go through the horrors on a day to day basis, in different parts of the geographical divides, under unrelated circumstances – hence, they never make it to the news.
The Institution of Justice in focus is the Court of Law, where piles of pending files know no bounds. Reasons abound for the tepid pace in dispersal of justice. Judgements are based on solid witnesses that are verified; and verdicts written in stone, indelibly marked in History, need to be spelt out with caution. The Prosecution and the Defendant play with words, create alibis, allude towards scenarios, paint new pictures and colour them garishly with the brushes of imagination. The powers of money, position, society, all play roles in cases that are born, brought up, fought for, buried and laid to rest within the walls of the court room. And the guiding principle, amidst this entire ruckus, is “Justice for all”! To see through the masks, enliven the principle and make people breathe again with all of one’s sagacity is the trick that needs to be mastered by the Judge, every time.
That was the theory with the practicalities involved. Still, it remains just the theory. In all earnestness, to be a Judge in a Court of Law is to play God! The Judge has the discretion to either send the man back to life or to banish him to the cells of hell. The Judiciary plays the role of sanitising the society. That’s no job but is social service!
If the court is sacrosanct, if judges are to be revered, if justice is always to be served, why are judgements being overruled? If the number of pending cases indeed reflects the strenuous search for the hidden truth, how can the divine words pronounced from the Halls of the wise men be proved otherwise?
A recent verdict in one of the District Courts has been overruled and the sentenced has been set free by the higher designate. The accused was charged with rape and murder and was awarded with Life imprisonment. The sentence was appealed against in the High Court and was negated there, setting the prisoner free!
There is only one question here: Who is crazy? We do have some options to decide from – Judge 1, who sentenced an innocent man to Life Term imprisonment; Judge 2, who released a dangerous prisoner into the society; We, the people!
That we are dumb was diagnosed long back by the social doctors who got Power as the fees for their diagnosis. But, how can a Judge be crazy? What has happened here is termed, in judicial jargon, “Contempt of Court”! Can the High Court be charged with ‘Contempt of Court’ for releasing a criminal attested by the District Court? Or, can charges be levelled against the District Court for doing grave injustice to the guiding principles of our judiciary – “Justice for all”, by sentencing an innocent for life? What would the judgement be, if the case is given a fresh lease of life in the Supreme Court? Once a judgement is pronounced at any court, should it not be taken as the final word? Ought not a wrong judgement to be penalised?
The Institution of Justice in focus is the Court of Law, where piles of pending files know no bounds. Reasons abound for the tepid pace in dispersal of justice. Judgements are based on solid witnesses that are verified; and verdicts written in stone, indelibly marked in History, need to be spelt out with caution. The Prosecution and the Defendant play with words, create alibis, allude towards scenarios, paint new pictures and colour them garishly with the brushes of imagination. The powers of money, position, society, all play roles in cases that are born, brought up, fought for, buried and laid to rest within the walls of the court room. And the guiding principle, amidst this entire ruckus, is “Justice for all”! To see through the masks, enliven the principle and make people breathe again with all of one’s sagacity is the trick that needs to be mastered by the Judge, every time.
That was the theory with the practicalities involved. Still, it remains just the theory. In all earnestness, to be a Judge in a Court of Law is to play God! The Judge has the discretion to either send the man back to life or to banish him to the cells of hell. The Judiciary plays the role of sanitising the society. That’s no job but is social service!
If the court is sacrosanct, if judges are to be revered, if justice is always to be served, why are judgements being overruled? If the number of pending cases indeed reflects the strenuous search for the hidden truth, how can the divine words pronounced from the Halls of the wise men be proved otherwise?
A recent verdict in one of the District Courts has been overruled and the sentenced has been set free by the higher designate. The accused was charged with rape and murder and was awarded with Life imprisonment. The sentence was appealed against in the High Court and was negated there, setting the prisoner free!
There is only one question here: Who is crazy? We do have some options to decide from – Judge 1, who sentenced an innocent man to Life Term imprisonment; Judge 2, who released a dangerous prisoner into the society; We, the people!
That we are dumb was diagnosed long back by the social doctors who got Power as the fees for their diagnosis. But, how can a Judge be crazy? What has happened here is termed, in judicial jargon, “Contempt of Court”! Can the High Court be charged with ‘Contempt of Court’ for releasing a criminal attested by the District Court? Or, can charges be levelled against the District Court for doing grave injustice to the guiding principles of our judiciary – “Justice for all”, by sentencing an innocent for life? What would the judgement be, if the case is given a fresh lease of life in the Supreme Court? Once a judgement is pronounced at any court, should it not be taken as the final word? Ought not a wrong judgement to be penalised?
The one question does give rise to a series of questions. Not every question would be answered, not every one would be comfortable being questioned. But, this is not a matter of an isolated incident. Every verdict can be appealed against; and with every judgement that counters another, we have a statement that labels someone, an ass!
posted by Krish at 4:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home