Dear BK:
I admire your dedication to desi-demokrasy, and your faith in its
institutions :-). Good for you.
I have very clear opinions about them. I will however wait to see
how and if other Assam Net participants in these matters respond to
your wish--"I hope
you'll now accept that the due process of law or the rule of law as it
is termed in UK has remained in tact at least for the purpose of
our discussion here.", before I express mine, even though
it is hardly a secret.
Best.
c
At 4:10 AM -0400 4/26/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Chandan
*****These things could be considered only if case is heard, guilt is established....
You're right. But cases are heard fairly by the courts once they are brought before the judges. I have not heard any criticism on this score. As regards trial delays, I discussed the subject before.
*****More so in an environment of complete lack of accountability and an absence of due process could reliably be sought.
I am not claiming that the system is perfect. First judges have discretion in sentencing a convict. Say in a rape case, where the maximum punishment could be 7 years (I do not have a law book to verify it), the judge can dispense a smaller dose according to his discretion.The judiciary in India, despite your apphrension, on the whole functions efficiently and fairly. One of the reasons for this is the vast network of legal reporting in the English-speaking world. The juges' work is scrutinised world over and we benefit from other Anglo-American precedents as well. India is a big country and the judiciary is integrated throughout India. The judgments of the High Courts as well as the Supreme Court are under the microscope of the legal luminaries every hour of the day. So far as lower courts are concerned, their work is supervised strictly by the High Courts.
Where is the loophole then? I cannot answer this question properly as I am not in touch with existing laws and also how the system is in operation today. Broadly the prosecution may not present certain cases to the Courts, say cases where Ministers are involved or even withhold evidence as the State is the custodian of records. In reality, especially as members of the public can themselves sue any private individual, however, powerful and the State itself, the situation is not so bad. As I said earlier there were many cases against Ministers and big shots (Remember the Harlalka case attempting to rob the insurance companies soon after independence?) since 1950.
Because of the judiciary's openness there is little need of accountability on the part of the executive in regard to dispensation of justice except the responsibility to find the money to meet the rising expenditure of the courts and obviously that includes such matters as appointment of judges at all levels, arrange local hearings (circuits) and so on.
Recently a case of irregularities in the appointment of a large number of constables was tried by the Guwahati High Court. I think the matter is sub judice. There were several other cases of public interest. I think general poverty stops peple from going to the courts for the redress of their grievances.
I hope you'll now accept that the due process of law or the rule of law as it is termed in UK has remained in tact at least for the purpose of our discussion here.
_______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [email protected] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
