In my last article ‘Manipur violence shames the country’ (O Heraldo, July 13), I referred to the reluctance of people in criticizing Courts, for fear of being held in contempt. Since judges are humans, like us, their decisions are susceptible to mistakes. And when higher courts reverse decisions of lower ones, not seldom with strictures that there was no application of mind or that important aspects of the case had been overlooked, it is obvious that there were errors, deliberate or otherwise.
In last few years, there have been accusations, on good grounds, that independent institutions, particularly the CBI, ED and CEC are compromised and work under the influence of the Government. Instances of witch hunt by CBI and ED are such common occurrences that it would be fastidious and long to enumerate them, whereas the same alacrity is never seen in cases connected with those belonging or supporting the ‘party in power’. In fact, shockingly and shamelessly, cases against those who have been poached by the party, seem to promptly come to a standstill.
The judiciary, too, has not been spared such criticism. But when important court cases drag on for years, while some others are decided expeditiously for well-known reasons, when judges are posted or replaced in time for deciding specific cases, as it happened in Manipur, where the Autonomous District Council Chairman, a BJP man, close to the State Chief Minister, was being tried for his involvement in drugs case – as testified by a former Manipur Asst Police Superintendent, Thounaojam Brinda, one finds it difficult to contradict assertions being made against what we always considered, and still do, a highly respectable institution and the only hope of our country.
Recently, a wrong decision of a single acting judge of Manipur HC, spurred unrest in the State. The Supreme Court itself considered the order as ‘completely factually wrong’ and lamented that though the judge was given time to rectify his judgment, he had not done so. It is strange for a layman, like me, to understand why there is no action yet against a judge, passing an order, which he is not competent to do and which provoked what we are today witnessing in Manipur.
Courts in India have enough of cases and litigation in their hands. Most are result of inaction or wrong action of bureaucrats, elected representatives, bodies, etc and, if these are to be reduced, the judges would perhaps have to come down heavily on the culprits for adding to their work and forcing people into unnecessary expenditure. With such heavy burden, Courts have little time for suo motu cognizance of grave issues which affect public health, life, livelihoods, dignity, environment, etc, which, with autocratic Governments like the ones we have, merit serious attention. BJP ruled States, particularly UP and now Haryana have started bulldozing residences, shops, etc, purportedly illegal and on Government land, belonging particularly to the Muslim minority.
The Punjab & Haryana HC took suo motu notice and halted what they rightly suspected to be another form of ‘ethnic cleansing’, which BJP Governments seem specialized in. When we know that the entire country is full of illegalities, supported and even promoted by Governments in power to favour vote banks, why the selective targeting, without any notice or time? Is the law of the jungle being foisted in BJP ruled States?
Judges are far from being infallible. Not even their acquittals imply that the accused has/have not committed the crime. There could be various reasons why the accused is acquitted –benefit of doubt, want of sufficient evidence and most of all, shoddy investigations, which often allow real culprits to go scot-free. No doubt, it goes without saying that judges would rather absolve someone guilty than condemn an innocent. It is not rare, however, to see innocent people languishing in jails for months or years, solely due to pressure or bias of those in authority.
Believing that, notwithstanding acquittals, some of the accused in Gujarat 2002 riots, are the real culprits, BBC came out with a controversial documentary, which they claimed to have been ‘rigorously’ researched. The documentary referred to the criticism of Modi’s conduct by Western diplomats and British Government, including their Government report, which found that the riots had ‘all the hallmarks of an ethnic cleansing’. The Indian Government, of course, rejected the documentary, asserting that the accused had undergone long trials but had eventually come out unscathed, after being given a clean chit by the Supreme Court.
Apart from courts which enjoy the benefit of being spared the criticism of their actions and decisions, lest violators face punishment, some other institutions not only claim the same privilege, but also threaten action in case anyone dares violate this restriction. The right to free expression is a fundamental right of an individual and is also enshrined in our Constitution, along with some others. It carries with it some corresponding duties. Anyone using the right must do so with caution and utmost responsibility. This right cannot and must not be used to insult or defame anyone, without sufficient proof. It is nothing but sheer cowardice to call names or defame anyone taking advantage of this privilege from a position of comfort knowing full well that he/she cannot be prosecuted. Further, anyone who is bitterly critical of any respectable individual must have good grounds and the moral authority to do so.
In our small Goa, we know who has it and who doesn’t and what is the credibility and background of the detractors, especially when they happen to be politicians. Our ruling party politicians are drunk with power, which leads them to despise genuine public issues, which deserve attention and treat opponents with disdain and arrogance. Court cases have come in the way of them amassing illegal wealth, at the cost of Goa’s land and environment. Hence, the bouts of anger and despair, translated into insults and name calling.
The ruling side must understand that when courts decide in favour of NGOs and activists, the law is on the latter’s side.
(The author is a retired banker)
