Feed on
Posts
Comments

The Arrogance and Cruelty of Power

Nov 22nd, 2011 by

The Rome Statute of the ICC itself talks about its jurisdiction being  “complementary to national criminal jurisdictions”. Article 17 makes a case inadmissible if it has been or is being tried by a municipal court unless the proceedings are otherwise impeachable (for instance, if they are not independent/impartial). In contrast, other bodies operate on the principle of primacy, with the tribunals having precedence over municipal judicial authorities when it comes to trying the case. In the light of Saif al-Islam’s capture and the resolve of the Libyan authorities to subject him to a domestic trial, the question arises—can domestic trials for a political figure ever really be truly impartial?

Sample a story I came across where the leader of the Zintan council that caught Seif was quoted as saying: ”We can try him. It will not take too long; we don’t need new laws.”

I read this thrice over to make sure that I haven’t imagined a pre-determined result to the “trial.”

It is no wonder that world powers are all negotiating with Libya to surrender Seif to the ICC. The manner in which Gaddafi himself was shot and his corpse showcased to the public does not restore faith in a neutral trial in Libya. The interim Justice Minister insists that these fears are unfounded because Libya now has a law to separate the Judiciary from the Executive. One wonders at the naïveté.

I am not downplaying what Gaddafi, his son, or anyone who supported the regime is accused to have done to the people of Libya. The charges are grave. But it is precisely because the charges are grave that it becomes imperative to ensure not only Justice, but also the appearance of Justice. Vengeance has never been the aim of international criminal law.

Before the Nuremburg Trials commenced, Robert Jackson addressed the gathering. In his words:

“That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.”

 Every day, in many ways, complementarity is seeming to me, to be an excuse for Victor’s Justice. How much are we letting Sovereignty stand as an excuse for?

 

Tags: ,

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Inflation, Court Orders and Ideologies

Nov 9th, 2011 by

(An edited version of this article has appeared in the 10 Nov. Edition of DNA India and may be accessed here)

The recent statements of Dr. Manmohan Singh at the G20 Summit are extremely unnerving. That the Prime Minister of the country- being a prominent economist himself- should say that inflation is good as it is also a sign of the growth of this country makes the ‘aam aadmi’ shudder when he compares it with the reality in India today. Even distinguished economists would trash such a statement. While being sound in pure economic theory, the statement doesn’t hold true as it fails to take into account the social and political factors in society. The advantages of growth may be availed by only the few rich while the effects of inflation would affect the poor at large- a fact especially true in India’s case.

"Inflation is a sign of good growth and India's prosperity"

There is another angle to this. When the Prime Minister makes such a statement, he also, inevitably, dictates the economic policy of the state. In this case, a policy that is seemingly capitalist in nature and that would benefit only those with means and money. The statement in a way seemed to indicate that the Government is concerned only about the upper and upper- middle classes and the not the majority remainder suffering largely as a result of inflation. It would come as no surprise then that reform in capital markets, investments in industry are quick to come and be implemented where as landmark bills like the Right to Food Bill and the Land Acquisition Bill are yet to see the light of day. Even the Right to Education Act has run into its own share of problems. It may seem that the author is prevaricating a little too much but a little bit of pondering on the issue would lead one to the same conclusion.

It is in this light that one must understand the recent remarks by the Kerala High Court on price rise. In a PIL filed by former MP PC Thomas on the regular fuel price hikes and seeking their justification, the Court noted that only political parties seem to be protesting about the issue while its effects are on the common man. The Hon’ble Court in a way indicated that a consumer resistance would lend to greater voice on the issue. The Court then called for the balance sheets of the oil companies so that it may examine them and see any justification in the price hikes.

For the critics of judicial activism, the remarks and the action taken would be disturbing. They would like to believe that the judiciary shouldn’t interfere in questions of policy- an issue that ought to be clearly in the hands of the executive and legislature. For them, judicial interference in price rise or investigation of corruption cases would be unwarranted in nature. For instance, the formation of a committee to monitor the recovery of crores in black money stashed in Swiss banks was seen as excessive judicial activism by these critics.

Nevertheless, I recollect a meeting with a lawyer colleague of mine from the Bombay High Court on the issue. We were discussing about how Court judgments and remarks also have an ability to ridicule existing government policy and direct the manner in which the state should pursue its goals and policies- in this case, of socialism. Court judgments, or ‘rhetoric’ have the innate ability to address the needs and aspirations of the people- an idea that is gaining increasing importance off late.

A little elucidation is required on this comment. The judiciary today, as an organ of Government, is seen to possess a reputation that is untainted by the vices of corruption as existing in the legislative and executive branches of Government. When the Court makes a statement on the governance of the country, it attains a degree of sanctity that is used to hold the other two organs accountable. For instance, in Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court made scathing remarks on capitalism, the mining policies of the state and how they are responsible for the armed conflict prevalent in Central India. Few have called these remarks unwarranted as they weren’t connected to the case and dismiss them as ‘rhetoric’; but in a way, the remarks showed the disapproval of the government’s policies and set some sort of ideology that the government must follow- that of socialism and policies benefitting the poor and tribal peoples. It was mentioned earlier as to how even ‘rhetoric’ has the ability to address the needs and aspirations of the people- such holds true in Nandini Sundar’s case. Copies and notes on the judgment were distributed amongst the tribals in Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa. To say the least, they were extremely pleased to note that the Supreme Court had vilified the Government policy on mining and favouring corporates even though the judgment never affected them in any manner.

Such a trend isn’t new in any manner and finds support in history. During the 1960s, there were a series of judgments on labour law and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. These judgments gave lengthy discourses on socialism, equality and labour rights- even though not directly related to the cases at hand. It was this ‘rhetoric’ and remarks of Justice Gajendragadkar and his colleagues that set the tone of socialism and welfare of the working classes in Government policy in time to come.

In similar vein, the remarks of the Kerala High Court are a befitting retort to the Prime Minister’s statement on inflation and the Finance Minister defending the fuel price hike. They show that the Government cannot ridicule the masses and formulate policies under the garb of growth that benefit only a few. Rightly then, news channels and print media capitalized on the remarks to counter Government officials.

In contemporary times, it may be said that Parliament reached it epoch moment in the last monsoon session. The debates on price rise and the issue of corruption led one to believe in the existence of responsible social democracy. Some also readily believed the speeches of the MP that action was being taken to tackle the issue of inflation such that it doesn’t affect the poor and the ‘aad aadmi’. Change however, seems nowhere in the picture and the situation has only gone from bad to worse.

Posted in Court, Politics | No Comments »

Paid News: Corruption in the Media

Oct 16th, 2011 by

A review of the recent Press Council of India report on ‘Paid News’.

In or about May 2009, the Wall Street Journal and later on The Guardian published a series of articles about the phenomenon of paid news stating that various newspapers and media houses were thriving on the policy “if you want press, you have to pay”. A result of various allegations prompted the Press Council of India to investigate this phenomenon and call for various views on the subject.

The Report of the Sub-Committee was submitted way back in 2010 but was ordered to be published only recently on the 19th of September, 2011. The Report is not just invaluable for the scathing remarks it makes on the press and media houses. It also details a sort of a primer on ‘paid news’, attempts to define it and goes as far as to name agencies and media houses indulging in the practice. Two specific areas of paid news have been addressed which shall be discussed; that involving big corporate and the other political parties.

The Report starts off as a story in describing the manner in which ‘paid news’ came about in India. About a major media house with the name of Bennett Coleman Company Ltd. (BCCL) that figured out that it could increase its revenues many fold by indulging in this practice. A service called Medianet was started in 2003 that acted as a front to publish news for corporations and political parties in various publications of BCCL that included the noted daily, ‘Times of India’. Very soon other media houses joined the bandwagon which resulted in increased revenues for these companies. One of the submissions to the Press Council of India stated that in Andhra Pradesh alone the size of the paid news market ranged from 300 Crores to a 1000 Crores depending on the time of the year.

This news is extremely disturbing to say the least. It is not just that we as a nation and people ought to be reading news that is free and independent. More so that it casts doubt on the news that is normally published in the papers and reported as such. Paid news is another extension of the corruption prevalent in the country. Today when the press is reporting about the extensive corruption in the country and playing a major role in exposing scams, one shudders at the thought that news can be bought and starts asking questions about its credibility.

One must note however that the Press Council of India is not probably the first body that has expressed an opinion on the issue. Apart from the various dicta of the Supreme Court on the subject, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) too investigated various ‘private treaties’ being entered into by media corporations with other companies in exchange for cash, shares or other interests. The Commission noted that that media companies were picking up stakes in such companies and in return, were providing coverage through advertisements, favourable news reports and editorials. The SEBI Chairman then, in 2009, wrote to the Press Council of India suggesting some changes in the practice of reporting prevalent in the Country. Most notable of which was the idea that disclosures be made regarding the stake held by a media company in in reports or articles relating to the company in which the media company holds a stake.

Such a recommendation seems to have fallen on deaf ears. It is also true that the Press Council of India as an organization could have hardly done anything in this regard and the Report seems to indicate that. As an organization it has the power to admonish, reprimand and pass strictures but cannot penalize the errant and those found guilty of practice. In effect, it is powerless to handle such a phenomenon.

This is further highlighted when the issue of paid news being published in favour of political parties is being discussed. The Election Commission of India noted the impact of free, independent and fair press on democracy and asked that Press Council of India to look into this practice. The Press Council, on its part, defined ‘paid news’ but added that the real issue is that of enforcement. When the former Chief Minister of Maharashtra Ashok Chavan deposed before the Committee on allegations of paid news against him, he merely rebuked the Committee stating that it had no jurisdiction on the issue and that any complaint should be made to the Election Commission under the Representation of People’s Act, 1961.

In a sense then, this Report is also a blot on the Press Council of India. While on one side it has sought to expose the phenomenon of paid news in the country and gone to name various media companies indulging in it, on the other hand it exposes the fact that as a statutory body, the Press Council of India is ineffective to check this disturbing trend.

This is further attenuated by the fact that even after hearing by the Committee had begun, stark examples of ‘paid news’ were appearing on television and in newspapers during the time of various assembly elections.

On an ancillary note, one must question the timing of this Report. Why is it that even after more than 10 months of it being submitted to the Press Council, the report wasn’t made public? Only after the Chief Information Commissioner intervened and asked that the Report be made public was action taken. Equally surprising and ironic is the fact that most prominent media houses have refused to publish anything substantial about the report.

A few decades ago, two prominent intellectuals, Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault were debating about the role and structure of society. Somewhere in the middle of the debate, now available on youtube, Foucault makes a remark on political power and that exercised by informal social groups including psychiatrists and the media and says;

“It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticize the working of institutions that appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticize and attack them in such a manner that political violence has always exercised obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them. If we want a right away to define the profile and formula of our future society, without criticising all the forms of political power that are exerted in our society, there is a risk that such institutions will reconstruct themselves …..”

While the Press Council now has recommended that ‘paid news’ be made an electoral malpractice under the election laws in India. More needs to be done. An average reader must have faith in the news he reads and know for sure that it is not bought in any manner. What good would literacy be if only to exercise undue influence upon the minds of others.

Also read: A 2009 article in the Outlook on the subject. 

 

Posted in corruption, Media | 1 Comment »

Rationing justice in India

Oct 14th, 2011 by

Does the massive case backlog in India merit a consolidation of sorts – an enforced rationing of the judicial system? What are the implications of making justice scarce, and how can they be tackled?

These are questions that Gaurav Laroia (GWU alum, currently with an election monitoring team in Liberia) raises in his pilot post on the topic.

—–

The current case backlog in India is of Homeric proportions. In 2008 the backlog was estimated to be at 25 million cases in the lower courts, 3.7 million in the high courts and over 45,000 at the Supreme Court of India.[1] In recent years this backlog has only grown, leading to crisis in the Indian judiciary. The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court estimated that it would take the court 466 years to clear its backlog of cases at the current rate of case disposal.[2] Indeed, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called clearing the case backlog the “biggest challenge for the Indian judiciary” and he noted that India might possibly have the largest case backlog in the world.[3]

Hiram E. Chodosh in his book, “Global Justice Reform”[4] examines the underlying causes of backlog in the Indian judicial system. He writes that in the Indian system, “Finality is elusive. Appellate rights are excessively permissive. Cases linger beyond the lifespan of the original parties thus triggering additional hearings to satisfy notice and process requirements for new rights holders directly affected by the judgment.”[5] In addition, he notes that judges rarely use procedure to help frame specific issues in a case and in addition constant interlocutory appeals “fracture the case into many parts and effectively stay the trial.”[6]

(After discussing case consolidation, I will examine one set of cases that suffered from most of these issues and what effect consolidation may have had on making its proceedings simpler and more efficient.)

In order to address some of these issues the Indian Parliament passed several amendments to the Civil Procedure Code of 1908.[7] These new procedures were to have encouraged new alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and were “based on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (INCITRAL) model law, itself derived from mainly the European practice of conciliation.”[8] However, as of yet, it is not a popular form of dispute resolution and has made little dent in disposing of India’s case backlog.

The Indian Law Commission, other think tanks and commentators are not short on other proposed solutions for the crisis. One common proposal is to simply add to the number of judges in the country. India’s judges to population ratio is at a mere 12.5 judges per million people whereas the U.S. ratio is 104 per million.[9] However, that proposal would require significant resource reallocation from the government and may still only provide a temporary fix.[10] More interesting and innovative are possible procedural and doctrinal innovations and improvements.

One possible solution to the problem of case arrears in the Supreme Court would simply be for the court to take fewer appeals. It has been reported that,

“From 2005 to 2008 the court accepted about 12 per cent of admission matters placed before it for regular hearing. For instance, in 2007 the court heard about 57,000 admission matters and accepted 6,900 for regular hearing (it decided about 5,000 cases during regular hearing in the same year). This acceptance rate, more than any other factor, has not only created the court’s backlog, but defined its character and function.”[11]

However, Indians have come to expect that their appeals have a real chance of being heard before the Supreme Court. The media scrutiny the court is constantly under and the prestige of the judges means that the chance for a fair hearing is much greater at the country’s highest court than at the lower, and even the high courts.[12]

More promising is the Law Commission of India’s observation and suggestion that, “Many cases are filed on similar points and one judgment can decide a large number of cases. Such cases should be clubbed with the help of technology and used to dispose other such cases on a priority basis; this will substantially reduce the arrears.”[13]

This proposal, like all proposals to consolidate cases trades some amount of individual justice for efficiency. I will explore the “fairness critique” of case consolidation, what it means for notions of individual and distributive justice, how such case consolidation works in other countries, and how it might work in the Indian context.

There can be no doubt that case consolidation is basically an efficiency argument – such rationing will trade some ‘amount’ of individual justice for its purposes. How will it work in the Indian context? That will be subject of my posts to come.

[1] Neeta Lal, Huge Case Backlog Clogs India’s Courts, Asia Times Online, Jun 28, 2008, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JF28Df02.html.

[2] Renu Agal, Delhi Justice’s 466-year Backlog, BBC News, February 11, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7883750.stm.

[3] India Has the World’s Largest backlog of Court Cases: PM, NDTV, August 16, 2009. http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/india_has_worlds_largest_backlog_of_court_cases_pm.php,.

[4] Hiram E. Chodosh, Global Justice Reform: A Comparative Methodology, (New York 2005).

[5] Id. at p. 75

[6] Id. at p. 76

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Rohit Kumar, Vital Stats – Pendency of Cases in Indian Courts, PRS Legislative Research, August 26, 2009, http://www.prsindia.org/administrator/uploads/general/1251796330~~Vital%20Stats%20-%20Pendency%20of%20Cases%20in%20Indian%20Courts%2026Aug2009%20v10.pdf.

[10] The Indian Parliament, in 2008, increased the number of judges in the Indian Supreme Court to 30 and yet the backlog remains as daunting as ever.

[11] Nick Robinson, Too Many Cases, Frontline Vol. 26 Issue 01 Jan 2009, Available at: http://indialawyers.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/too-many-cases/.

[12] Dhananjay Mahapatra, Something Rotten in Allahabad HC: Supreme Court, The Times of India, Nov 27, 2010, Available at: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-11-27/india/28224855_1_allahabad-hc-single-judge-strong-house-cleaning-measures.

[13] Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan, Reforms in the Judiciary – Some Suggestions, Government of India Law Commission of India, August 5, 2009, p. 36, Available at: lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report230.pdf

Tags: ,

Posted in Constitution, Court, Human Rights | No Comments »

“Outside the church, there can be no salvation”

Oct 7th, 2011 by

In my previous post, I had written about the spillover effects of the Arab Spring – how the Israel-Palestine conflict is being moulded by popular uprisings in the region; and how Turkey is looking to position itself as a key post-revolutionary player.

First, the Arab-Israeli conflict. Here is a synthesized takeaway from a roundtable discussion with students from the region, and from a talk by Camille Mansour, who was an advisor to the Palestinian delegation during the ’92-93 peace talks in DC.  In blogging this, I feel my opinions have coloured some of the statements made – so unless they are explicitly referenced or within quotes, these comments should not be attributed to the speakers themselves.

What prompted Palestine to approach the UN seeking statehood, and why have negotiations in recent times failed to make headway?

Amit Paz, an Israeli-American who is currently with the Tufts Department of Political Science, was of the opinion that Israel’s “inflexible policymaking” had contributed significantly to the present deadlock. Coupled with the “slow death of the Israeli Left” and activist politics, this one-size-fits-all approach has resulted in the government working with the “unequivocal belief that Israel is right”. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “better a bad press than a good eulogy” quip, according to Amit, embodies the self-righteous attitude of the Israeli establishment. On the other hand, there are very legitimate security concerns that influences Israel’s behaviour towards negotiations. Israel is concerned about Iran’s erratic actions, the change in populist sentiment in Egypt (and the possibility of the peace treaty being torn up), and the continuing supply of arms to Hezbollah and Hamas. These concerns, as Amit elaborated, has prompted Israel to maintain that “peace must be anchored in security”.

However, Israeli cynicism directed towards the UN and neighbours like Turkey could prove counterproductive. Israel’s isolation in the region, it seems to me, has been self-invited to a considerable extent. The Gaza flotilla episode and Operation Cast Lead does not bear lightly on a country looking to achieve a breakthrough through diplomacy.

Tamara Masri, who grew up in Palestine before coming to Tufts, offered the perspective of the youth in West Bank and Gaza, who have come to be “disillusioned with the Palestinian political class”. The narrative of loss, which has morphed from that of land to one of identity has reflected the growing frustration among Palestinian youth. And although this new generation does not want to resort to violence, there is a realisation that “freedom with dignity” may be an imminent possibility. This realisation has been brought about by the events of the Arab Spring where protests have been driven largely by the younger generations. Abbas’ speech at the UN, as Tamara pointed out, highlights this clamour for recognition. But the contradiction between “abstraction” and “security concerns” could not be sharper, and this yawning gap needs to be bridged to work towards successful negotiations.

Other students from Jordan and Lebanon underlined the impact that the Arab Spring has had on their countries. In Jordan, where the Palestinian issue grabs headlines due tothe  country’s proportion of refugees, protests have been mostly muted. Nonetheless, Jordanians are irked by Israel’s “head in the sand” attitude, pretending nothing’s wrong while the conflict spills over borders. Lebanon seems to have ushered in some improvements in its governance, probably egged on the wave of protests in its neighbourhood.

—

Of course, not everyone agrees with this paradigm of negotiation that have marked attempts to resolve the conflict. Prof. Mansour, for instance, believes the Palestinians have been “trapped in the negotiation cage”. “The situation”, he said “is akin to the Catholic Church’s dictum drilled into its followers – there can be no salvation outside the Church”. The Palestinian establishment, to him, seems to be convincing themselves that negotiation is the only way out.

What then, are the key features of Prof. Mansour’s ‘new’ paradigm?

  •  The present paradigm takes into account the needs of a State from a security perspective. This sort of skewed negotiation where the interests of both parties differ significantly has yielded little benefits. A bottom up approach – “we leave you with  housing, health and education while we control security” – is simply counterproductive.
  • A gradual devolution of powers – a top-down method – could be more useful, expanding the Palestinians’ areas of governance to eventually include security.
  • Each time the sides sat down for talks, Israeli would offer transitional steps – the final conclusive settlement would be avoided. A new paradigm should to resolve the conflict vis-a-vis land and refugees for good.
  • The provision on arbitration between both sides is optional at the moment – usually any party can go to arbitrate disputes – in this case two sides have to agree making the arbitration clause ineffective. Palestine should make the most of international law and formal institutions (think ICJ judgement on West Bank wall) to absorb legitimacy.
  • Look beyond the US to other  international actors – the problem with the present approach is not that Israel is a US ally – it is perfectly possible that one nation could be an ally of a negotiating party and not an ally of the other AND yet be fair. The United States has not been an honest broker to the dispute.
  • Palestine should refuse further concessions and stick to its demand for freezing settlement constructions.
  • The benchmark of returning to 1967 borders must be made non-negotiable.
These are all very intriguing suggestions, but it seems to me that Prof. Mansour’s central arguments feature well within the paradigm of negotiations. Neither the present approach nor Mansour’s suggestions will facilitate a speedy resolution of the dispute. In fact, what Mansour advocates is a hardening of the Palestinian stance. That approach may offer dividends if the role of the MidEast Quartet is diminished and other international actors enter the picture. In the interim however, a break from the new paradigm, as some students said during the roundtable discussion, may only come from a new intifada. Nonetheless, another uprising would render the region extremely unstable, and its merits are far from being unilaterally advantageous for Palestine.

Tags: , , ,

Posted in Foreign Affairs | No Comments »

On Persecution

Oct 5th, 2011 by

A DIG rank police officer, turned whistle blower now, became one of the few, if not only, high ranking officials to give testimony against the Narendra Modi government on the Gujarat riots. He was arrested a few days ago. The charge- falsely inducing one of his subordinates into giving testimony of meetings that happened with Narendra Modi and other high ranking officials. The specific offences include threatening a public servant, fabricating false evidence and wrongful confinement. The Officer’s name is Sanjiv Bhatt.

Arun Fereira was a resident of Bandra, Mumbai and a passionate human rights activist. In May 2007, he was arrested and slapped with 8 cases under the seemingly draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. He was acquitted by the Court on all charges and was released with a surely on 27th September 2011. On the day of his release, moments after his getting out of prison, he was kidnapped by armed goons in a Tata Sumo; infront of his lawyers and family members. These were later identified as plain clothed police officer and the lawyers were later informed that he was in the Purda Police Station and arrested in connection with crime number 14/07. The Supreme Court judgment of Uday Chand v. Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, [(1983) 2 SCC 417] is a direct judgment on the point that such an arrest cannot be made.

 And yes, we have all heard of Binayak Sen and his relentless struggle for tribal rights and public health; the manner in which he was persecuted by the Indian state and now been convicted of sedition by the trial court. In the meantime, he has been appointed a member of the Planning Commission and is slated to receive the Gandhi Peace Prize in November this year.

………………..

 There are instances when persecution is quite blatant. The above instances are poignant reminders to us of the power of the Indian state and the manner in which they come down on people; those who strive to protect rights and fundamental freedoms.

 Bal Gangadhar Tilak was probably one of the most famous of such prisoners who faced persecution. He was charged time and again by the British Indian government for sedition. Part of his testimony now stands inscripted in Court No. 47 of the Bombay High Court and reads;

 “In spite of the verdict of the Jury, I maintain that I am innocent. There are higher powers that rule the destiny of men and nations and it may be the will of providence that the cause which I represent may prosper more by my suffering than by my remaining free”.

Providence came to Tilak’s side and prospered only after India’s independence in 1947. In the present day scenario, it is highly likely that providence takes the back seat as there doesn’t seem to be any end to persecution.

In a discussion with some of my friends the other day, we were talking about how the State can just get to somebody; lay down its wrath. Various options turned up. Arbitrary charges, blocking funding, personal financial issues, attacking the family etc.. Each of these instances had been used against somebody or the other that we personally knew in our lives. The discussion ended with concluding that the rule of law doesn’t have any meaning in this Country any more.

It may be assumed to be quite sweeping a statement to talk about the ‘rule of law’ in that manner, but consider the following instance: In July this year, the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment on the legality of the Salwa Judum. After years of working on the issue and having faith in the Court I remarked that justice had finally been done. In that case, the Court had declared illegal the appointment of SPOs and ask that they be disbanded. Earlier Orders had mandated compensation for all injured. A few months later, the Chattisgarh Government passed a law regularizing SPOs into the police cadre. Violence, it is believed, hadn’t ceased during this period. The entire effect of the Supreme Court judgment was rendered futile then.

If there is any solace that one can take in these persecutions, it is only that there is an increasing awareness of these events by civil society members and the protests in support of these people surely create an impact. Binayak Sen’s arrest in 2007 had sparked off a world wide campaign for his release and extensive media coverage could have contributed in a major way to his release.

The protests against the arrest of Sanjiv Bhatt may be seen in the same light. In his letter to Narendra Modi on the Supreme Court judgment in Zakia Jafri’s case, he quoted a poem written by an aluminus of MS University, Baroda; part of which states;

“I have truth and no force

You have force and no truth

You being you

And I being I

Compromise is out of the question

So let the battle begin…”

Persecution shall exist. It is only for people to stand up to it; in larger interests of justice.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Array