Even trenchant critics of the criminal justice system are impressed by three recent rulings.
I AM writing this on a day when newspapers are full of the life of Rajaji on the occasion of his 128th birth anniversary. His legendary ability as an administrator is quite germane to my column, because he was unequivocal about the need for a firm hand in maintaining law and order.
Some of his generation, with whom I had the privilege of interacting during my college days, drew pointed attention to the determination with which he broke the Madras City Police Constabulary strike. I understand that Rajaji, as the Chief Minister, gave a dressing down to the Inspector-General of Police and the Commissioner of Police who asked for instructions, instead of acting, to discipline the men on strike. Much more than his clearheaded administration, he was noted for his uncompromising stand on the question of integrity in public life.
Whenever I speak to the younger generation, I hold out Rajaji, along with the Mahatma, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, as a role model they would do well to emulate if they believe in a value-based career. My reference to these four great men is in the context of the new low we have reached in governance where persons with not merely a dubious past but with a clear criminal record as borne out by court judgments are accommodated in Ministries. Political expediency winks at criminality as an irrelevant factor when persons are chosen for public office. When we are desperate to find a way to reverse the trend, occasional judicial intervention offers some hope of improvement in the quality of men and women who are picked for positions of national significance.
It is in this backdrop that trenchant critics of the Indian criminal justice system - I am one of them - are greatly impressed by the recent turn of events. Rulings/judgments of courts at three levels - Supreme Court, High Court and Sessions Court - involving heavyweights have raised hopes that the system will no longer buckle under threats of those who wield power. The sentencing of Shibu Soren, Union Minister, to life term for the murder (1994) of his personal assistant Shashi Nath Jha, by an Additional Sessions Judge in Delhi is welcome. This is not merely because justice has been done to the family of a functionary serving under a Member of Parliament but also because it puts paid to the belief that truth and justice can be wiped out by prolonging the judicial process.
There is an old saying that the limits of human endurance have never been reached. The Shibu Soren episode possibly disproved this. Whoever imagined that political chicanery could descend to such depths? Not only did a political party receive money to exercise its vote in Parliament in a particular manner, its principal leader went on to organise the murder of an assistant who had got wind of this unholy deed and demanded more than a share of the booty. Let us hope that we have indeed reached the limits of political corruption.
I am most impressed by the fact that the remarkable Delhi Judge went to the extent of fining Soren to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs and ordering compensation for the victim's family, to be paid out of the fine. (Rs.1 lakh is payable to the mother and Rs.2 lakhs each to the two daughters of the deceased.) I salute the Judge for his courage, as also for his humanity. Interestingly, until a few years ago, some officials in the lower judiciary were not even aware that the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) has a provision (Section 357) whereby the court, while convicting a person for an offence, can impose a fine or a sentence, of which the fine forms a part, and proceed further to compensate any person for any loss or injury caused by the offence. As a result of this ignorance, many victims or their families went without any financial relief whatsoever. I am happy that judgments like the one in the Shibu Soren case will send the right signal down the judicial hierarchy.
Next, we come to the hapless but gutsy Test cricketer whose road rage nearly two decades ago has now brought him ignominy in the form of three years in prison. Navjot Singh Sidhu is a colourful and lovable character who, with his strong views that generally go by the name of `Sidhuism', has transformed sports commentary on TV beyond recognition. I am a great admirer of his. But this does not colour my views on the unfortunate incident during which he lost his cool and took the law into his own hands to deal with someone who picked a quarrel with him over the parking of vehicles in downtown Patiala, way back in 1988. Remember, Sidhu was acting on the spur of the moment and he did not have any intention to cause death. If my facts are correct, Sidhu did not even have a weapon, and it was a mere blow with his hand that led to death.
The law, however, is cruel. My conjecture is that the Punjab and Haryana High Court believed that Sidhu's act was so rash that no reasonable man would have committed it. Since I do not have a copy of the judgment, I presume Sidhu got the benefit of Exception 4 of the five listed under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, in accordance with which, under certain listed circumstances, an act causing death will not amount to murder. This is what is known as `culpable homicide not amounting to murder'.
Exception 4 says: "Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner." An Explanation appended to the Exception says: "It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault." Section 304 prescribes a punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous) for a term which may extend to 10 years. Additionally, a fine may also be imposed on the convicted offender.
A piece of unsolicited advice to Sidhu. While he has an undisputed right to appeal to the Supreme Court, any attempt to politicise the case may prove to be his undoing. TV scenes in the days following the judgment showed him in the company of a number of politicians belonging to a wide spectrum. It is possible they were uninvited guests. I am not sure such a show is warranted because Sidhu's conviction is not the offshoot of any political witch-hunt.
I am particularly distressed to see him closeted with some people who have unsavoury reputations and are themselves in deep legal trouble.Sidhu's case is a warning to many of us who face provocation on the streets from unruly drivers who are a law unto themselves. It is no doubt unfair for me to suggest restraint to motorists and pedestrians whose lives are imperilled by uncivilised characters who drive rashly and dangerously, often under the influence of liquor. It is better to summon police help than to try to discipline those who do not obey the law.
I can already hear readers asking me how practical such advice is when the police do not perform the role they are expected to perform. This is the dilemma that all law-abiding citizens face in a life plagued by administrative negligence and apathy arising from an overburdened bureaucracy.
The third recent event is one that should warm the hearts of those who are incensed by the deliberate procrastination of trials by public servants (including Ministers) hauled up under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This relates to the Supreme Court ruling (December 7, 2006) on the much abused Section 19, which lays down that previous sanction of the competent authority is mandatory to prosecute a public servant under specified sections of the Act.
Countless number of civil servants and former Ministers have taken shelter under this provision with a view to thwarting prosecution. Governments have shielded their favourites among the civil service by delaying or denying sanction.
Apart from this, some political functionaries have disputed sanction orders by trying to establish that the order filed by prosecuting agencies such as the Anti-Corruption Bureau or the Central Bureau of Investigation had been obtained from the wrong authorities. If the sanction was secured from the Governor, the accused have sometimes taken the stand that it should have been obtained from the Speaker. On the other hand, if the Speaker was approached, there would be objections because the Governor was not asked.
This is the harassment that anti-corruption agencies are subjected to by corrupt public servants. Some other worthies have tried to demolish a sanction order by trying to prove that the sanctioning authority had not applied his or her mind. You must thank your stars if you are the sanctioning authority as long as the accused does not take the plea that you have no mind at all.This is the ludicrous state of affairs that has made our prosecutions for corruption a mockery of the worst kind.
The Supreme Court has watched the game far too long not to react to it. Exasperated, possibly, by this unintended legal protection of corrupt people in public life, the court, while dismissing the petitions filed by former Bihar Chief Ministers Lalu Prasad and Rabri Devi, former Punjab Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal and his son Sukhbir and former Punjab Deputy Chief Minister Rajinder Kaur, ruled that a public servant can be prosecuted without government sanction for criminal acts and corruption.
This significant ruling takes away the immunity provided by Section 19 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and denies an opportunity to public servants (including Ministers) to delay commencement of court proceedings such as the framing of charges.
Let us hope we will hereafter see speedier trial of civil servants and politicians proceeded against for corruption. Whether this Supreme Court decision will bring down corruption levels or not, there is here at least the semblance of deterrence flowing from a determined and fearless judiciary.
COMMents
SHARE