A travesty of justice
Why are upright judges in Goa getting suspended one after the other? We do not know. And why did one of them – Anuja Prabhudesai – get honourably reinstated after having to endure 10 long months of suspension? We do not know that either. All we do know is that in many ways the Judiciary, which so often demands that other branches of the state apparatus should conduct themselves in a transparent manner, operates under a cloak of secrecy; accountable to no one but itself. How conducive is this for a democracy that is supposed to operate on the basis of a system of mutual checks and balances?
South Goa Additional Sessions Judge Desmond D’Costa was on Wednesday placed under suspension pending an inquiry against him. The reason(s) for D’Costa’s suspension are not known. Nor can they be known. The instructions have been issued by the High Court. Judge D’Costa will not comment. And even the usual ‘reliable sources’ say that it is a one-line order that does not mention any reason.
Thankfully, secrecy is not the strongpoint of Indians, whether in the Judiciary or elsewhere. Even the most ‘confidential’ information invariably gets leaked. In the absence of any ‘official’ information, one has no choice but to rely on these ‘reliable sources’.
Can a judge be suspended unless a complaint against him or her, prima facie, has some merit, charges are framed, these charges are formally communicated to the judge concerned and (s)he is asked to show cause why action should not be taken, and given an opportunity to be heard in the matter? This is natural justice. Should it not apply to the very Judiciary that imposes it on the rest of the country?
The legal fraternity in Goa believes that Judge D’Costa, who has an impeccable reputation throughout a career spanning nearly two decades, was suspended because of the “hasty” manner in which he passed an acquittal verdict in a high profile murder case involving alleged serial killer Mahanand Naik. The case was before the Principal Sessions Judge, who presided over most of the trial. The concluding part of the trial, however, came up before Judge D’Costa while he was holding charge when the Principal Judge was on leave. He acquitted the accused for want of evidence. The Principal Sessions Judge, apparently, complained that he disposed off the case “hastily”, within 20 days.
If the judgment is faulty, then it will be overturned on appeal. If it is manifestly unsound, then the higher judiciary may pass strictures against the Judge, just as a Supreme Court Bench did recently, when it remarked that there seemed to be “something rotten” in the Allahabad High Court. But what is wrong if the judgment was merely delivered quickly? Can ‘haste’ be a standalone problem?
Delays are the bane of the Indian judiciary. Cases can last lifetimes, or even longer. “Justice delayed is justice denied” is probably the most quoted legal maxim in this country. Reducing the mountainous backlog of cases has, time and again… and again, been named the No: 1 priority in India’s justice system by various Law Ministers and Chief Justices of India over the years.
If this one trial was conducted swiftly while all the rest were tardy, then there could possibly be some substance to such a complaint. But Judge D’Costa has always tried to conduct trials as speedily as possible. His record is testimony to this, in every court he has been posted to throughout his career. He is a judge who endeavours to live by his words, rather than merely mouth them.
And if he is to be suspended for that, there could be no greater travesty of the cause of justice.
