Busted!

Funny are the laws of nature, and funnier are the instruments of enforcement. From time immemorial, tales of the victory of good over evil are being passed from generation to generation as the biggest treasure of mankind. They form the basis of our religious beliefs, or rather spiritual beliefs. Our festivals like Deepawali, Holi, and Onam are a testament to the spirit of virtue and honesty. Of course, just like all good things must come to an end, these stories ended up becoming just what they were, mere tales. People celebrate the pomp, not the essence, and humanity moves deeper into a pit of impiety. And therein comes the importance of the judiciary, or the court system, which is designed to serve as a reminder and guardian of the good old times when the 'good' stood above everything else.

But we had to make things complicated, so the system of laws and codes came into existence. Facts took precedence over logic, and muddled images of evidence being dug up from history became commonplace. While I agree that a code-defined judicial system is of utmost necessity to prevent harassment and misuse, I would like to corroborate the point that rationale is as important as hard evidence, especially when the case in question pertains to a national query on the welfare of citizens. And there can never be a better time to discuss this than in the wake of 3 important judgements passed by the Supreme court this week. All of these matters are still sub judice, so a final decisions is imminent sometime soon (soon by definition means 'the next 10 years' in the Indian judicial system). In the first one, and sadly not the last in the history of a ridiculously long drawn case, the Supreme court stayed the decision of the Allahabad high court, which mandated the trifurcation of disputed land in Ayodhya once home to the Babri masjid. In a nutshell, all peace that prevailed in the last 7 months since the Sep 30 judgement looks in danger. The masses were moving to better things like the movement against corruption and demanding accountability from the legislative as evident in the robust voting pattern in assembly elections. Now the media will play up this issue again, because as Advani and Rahul Gandhi showed us, nothing is more sensational in India than the talk of Ram mandir. A litany of litigations is again imminent. Agreed, the Allahabad court's decision was based more on beliefs than hard evidence, as some would say. Still, it was not out of the bounds of law. The fundamental groups like the VHP were upset by the decision to give away one-thirds to the Waqf board, but the overall masses breathed a sigh of relief that the matter was put to rest for good. What followed was a petition in the SC by the so called representative groups, seeking restraint on the order passed, and that is exactly what has happened! Choose thy representatives wisely.

The next is the Supreme court's directive in the sensitive matter of honor killings. With the dipping child sex ratio and worsening demographic data in a number of northern industrial states, it is necessary that old customs die and be replaced by neo-modern approach to society building. Honor killings have braved all progressive talk, and our politicians are once again to blame for giving legitimacy to the khap panchayats and their nonsensical judgments, which ironically are based on logic alone. Hence, as I said in the beginning, emphasis on evidence checks lacunae in the system. The SC bench made it clear that all cases of honor killings be considered in the 'rarest of rare' category, implying a sentence amounting to death to the accused should not be out of the court's purview. In a country where people still pray for their lives day and night, this comes along as a balanced and fair directive, and a necessary corrective measure, even though most countries are shunning death penalties and human rights organizations are up in arms against any such decisions.

The last is the sad tale of a city in the heartland of India, Bhopal, where the lakhs who survived the worst industrial disaster in the history of mankind on Dec 2, 1984, still await a fair judgement in their case against those responsible for the poisonous leak which engulfed them in the middle of the night. The SC today refused to alter its judgement pronounced in 1996, and chided the CBI and the MP government for bringing up a curative petition seeking a change in the nature of charges leveled against the accused. This decision is perhaps one worth debating all night. The SC has a bonafide concern; its judgement deem the highest legitimacy to a case under question, and altering the charges against the accused would perhaps be seen as a weakness of the highest and most honorable court in India. Passions are raging, and rightly so. Not only was the sentence of 2 years inadequate when one considers the quantum of damage caused by the carelessness and apathy of a few, the compensation settled upon by the government is hardly anything to cheer about. The SC has left it at the discretion of the sessions court to consider the change in the severity of the charges, and one can only speculate upon the future course of this case.

In some cases, hard evidence needs to be given center stage, and feelings of empathy and logic need to be kept aside so that the impartiality and objectivity of the court is preserved. However, as the above cases illustrate, judgements based on logic are equally important. For example, a federal jury in the US indicted a wealthy Wall street fund manager on charges of insider trading, and hard evidence as well as foresight helped build up the prosecutions case. In an year marked by the hard stance taking by our judiciary to set things right in a deteriorating governance, sensitivity becomes all the more important!

Here's some Rolling Stones for ya..