At 9:25 AM -0400 4/26/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Chandan
Yes, let's await more thoughts from our fellow-netters. As I reflect we missed an important aspect; that of criminal administration vis-a-vis the Police without which a discussion on the state of the judiciary is incomplete.We even touched investigative journalism but did not think of the Police and in the context of the insurgency in Assam the role of the Army either.
More later.
Regards
Bhuban
>As I reflect we
missed an important aspect; that of criminal administration
vis-a-vis the Police without which a discussion on the state of the
judiciary is incomplete.
On the contrary, we have. Many times. The last one below.
Another thing, I don't know if the police is considered a part of
the Judiciary in Britain ( I won't believe it is) , but it is an
administrative function. In India however it is commonly accepted (
obviously by aberration) that the police is a part of the JUDICIARY,
if not THE JUDICIARY, as in rural areas; where the 'sipahi' or the
'daroga' can mete out summary justice, just as the foot soldier on a
maintenance of law-and-order mission can and do, including summary
executions and that too with full protection of laws such as
AFSPA.
I remember a Sentinel editorial from a few years back going ga-ga
over a female police official having the you-know-what to ARREST the
members of some kind of a Mafia like gang of criminals in now
Jharkhand, who operated with impunity in the past, because no police
dared to arrest them. The editorial expressed great satisfaction in
justice finally being served.
My point?
The editorial rejoiced prematurely. It left the impression that
the arrest itself was the end, that justice was finally served.
Never mind that the suspects might have been freed on bail, may
never have gone to trial, may never have been convicted of
anything.
c
>The conviction rate of even the apex investigation agency
of the country, the >CBI, is a measly eight per cent. Where is all
this winking at the law leading >India to? To the ignominy of being
one of the most corrupt and violence-prone >countries in the world
(because so many people take the law in their own >hands). Is that
where we want to be (with our much-vaunted 3,500-year-old
>civilization)?
*** I am sure glad to see this acknowledgement. Question for
Assam Netters now is how to figure out what it might mean :-)?
>But what can the law-abiding citizens do? That the
question should arise is hardly surprising. After all, in these 57
years since Independence they have done nothing at all to assert
themselves or even to assert the supremacy of the law. Have we ever
encountered a situation where even a hundred law-abiding citizens have
written angry letters to protest a crime by a lawmaker? But is there
any newspaper in the world that dare ignore a hundred letters from
different people on the same issue? And if even a hundred people write
to say that they are disappointed with the Judiciary for having failed
to convict such a criminal, can the magistrate or the judge concerned
fail to act? Can he ignore the force of public grievance that the
hundred letters represent? Certainly not. And none of the hundred
people who wrote the letters of protest in newspapers can be held
guilty of having committed contempt of court. They did not accuse any
judge or magistrate of being biased or partial or even motivated. They
merely expressed their grievance at the Judiciary failing to take on a
>politician with criminal charges against him.
*** The above, unfortunately, is one of the most clueless
paragraphs. The gripe about the judiciary's inability to convict and
placing the blame of it alone demonstrates a rather surprising
unfamiliarity with how investigation, prosecution and adjudication are
supposed to work in a democratic society.
can due to
political expediencies or even personal prejudices,
then isn't there a
systemic problem?
not even come up for a
hearing for decades, what are the chances of
investigators, with
its levels of skill, or its resources, can rarely
prosecute the case
successfully? Would that not point to a systemic
failure?
kangaroo court is the
writer advocating?
I can go on and on. I am appalled at the confusion
displayed.
>Thus the first step is to make sure that there is adequate
evidence of the >accused politician having committed the crime he
is charged of.
*** A fine recommendation . But HOW is that to be
accomplished? Why is it not to be found now? Where seems to be
problem? What is the answer?
>Quite often the public perception may be at variance with
what the public >prosecutor may have against the politician. This
does not matter. We have seen >over the decades how keen most
public prosecutors are to let politicians go >scot-free for lack of
evidence.
*** And if so, where is the accountability of the prosecutors?
How will the prosecutor's feet be held to the fire? And how is the
prosecutor's charge, its responsibility is supplemented by the
investigative agencies? Where is their accountability?
>The public campaign must go on in full swing until the
magistrate or judge >begins to respect this public opinion and to
ensure a proper trial.
*** Another clueless observation. Should magistrates and judges
therefore be rendering justice according to the popular will? Is this
the concept of a democratic government the writer is displaying, or is
he advocating tyranny of the majority ?
And if they do not care about conducting a "proper trial"
now, why is that so? What will make them change and fall in line to
conduct them "properly"? How is the public or the powers
that be going to accomplish that?
_______________________________________________ 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
