LIFE - COLORES INFINITUM
Midst all the intense talks of
legal reforms and judicial reform after the Delhi gangrape, he thinks thoughtfully about
the court case and legal battle in his life.
After a consistently pursued
court trial for over 30 months, he has been able to secure justice at the district
court, and that too, thanks to an honest judge, otherwise the developments were
more on the discouraging side. The judgement sentenced the three accused with
life imprisonment for murdering his brother-in-law.
But, for him, it is just the
beginning of a winding judicial process in India. There are courts and courts
and there are levels and levels. The process stresses that any innocent should
not be punished and gives the right to judicial remedy till the Supreme Court’s
decision. It would be logical if there were a time-frame to it but given the
trend where it takes years for a criminal to be finally punished, it becomes
the most illogical aspect for the victims.
While doing some research to hire
a good lawyer at the high court, he came across comments where it was said he
was lucky that he could get the judgement from the district court so early. So
Then what is the need of such an
intense debate on judicial expediency and leniency? Why are we now talking on
the point that it is the delay in the judicial process that encourages the
criminal elements to go berserk?
How comfortably have we forgotten
the age-old proven commandment that ‘the justice delayed is justice denied’?
Then there are other discouraging
remarks. Recurring one among them was that sooner or later, the convict would
get bail from the high court. The observation, in their wisdom, says since the
accused were on bail during the trial phase at the district court, they are
‘claimants’ of getting bail from the high court till the time high court decides
on the case. The logic, according to them, is it takes many years for a high
court to decide on a case, so the courts, usually, grant bail.
He doesn’t know how much of it is
true but being the common observation by most of the lawyers, it leaves him thinking.
Doesn’t it matter for the Indian
judicial process to differentiate between a convict and an accused? In his
case, earlier they were accused, now they are convicts; convicts, who even
tried to threaten him during the trial phase at the lower court.
How can such an attitude be
justified in a brutal murder case?
Why so much of concern for the
perpetrators and not for the victims?
Many lawyers said the point that
he had received many threatening calls during the trial at the district court was
not strong enough a point. Is it true? What else then it takes for the judicial
system to wake up?
There are many questions in his
mind, revisited after the demand of judicial reforms over the Delhi gangrape case. But there are no clear
answers except the negative pointers.
And all he knows there is fight
ahead and he needs to be prepared.