The media reports in recent times on increasing menace of false cases presents quite a worrying picture. Gandhiji always proclaimed truth as God. Any punishment based on untruth is a sin.
On many occasions courts have directed to initiate complaints for the offence of perjury and realisation of compensation to victims. However, the amount of compensation to which the victim is entitled is so meager that it may be inadequate to meet for few days' legal expenses.
Provisions of CrPC under sections 250, 237(3) dealing with compensation to the victims and related provision 357 need a relook to meet the changing times. Section 193, 194 of IPC dealing with fabrication of false evidences are not effective remedies to confront such menace as the investigation officer enjoys immunity from personal accountability under Section 197 of CrPC.
It is not easy for an ordinary citizen to file a writ under section 226 in a High Court or to the Supreme Court under Article 32 to seek reliefs like quashing of FIRs / complaints. Similarly, filing a civil suit for compensation for defamation or vexatious prosecution is a time-consuming affair which one may not get result during his lifetime.
The investigation system continues to be manipulated since the British days and the imperial imprint is still noticeable in the investigation process. Several harsh and undemocratic measures in the statutes like “Sedition”, a non-transparent process in FIR registration, immunity to prosecutors from any personal accountability still delight the statutes.
In pre-Independence days, imperial police used the system to frighten and coerce freedom fighters while in post-Independence its position is like a “caged parrot” as the Supreme Court once chose to describe the premier investigation agency of the country which is often accused as partisan.
During last few years, in several politically sensitive cases, the tone and tenor of the investigation changed with change in Governments, a ground providing such perception. The police reform process is not taking off and several reports in the matter are getting dust.
The culture of vendetta by abuse and misuse of authority is a matter of concern as the same affects good governance, rule of law and social cohesion. From electoral law to other areas, opposition parties often accuse ruling parties of patronizing culture of vendetta but once elected to Government they forget to reform and resort to the same vendetta politics to discredit their opponents.
I specifically recall an instance worthy of noting how Biju Patnaik as Chief Minister from 1900-1995 with 2/3 majority support in the legislature had faced an intensive youth movement in the capital city backed by main opposition.
However, Bijubabu then turned down suggestion of some of his colleagues and administration to adopt coercive measures such as preventive detention. On the other hand, he directed for negotiation with agitating youths saying dissent is a legitimate function of the opposition. Politicians rarely show fraternity concerns.
Should we have to believe that sense of fraternity, humility and humor in politics is dead with end of the era of great luminaries like Pandit Nehru, DrLohia, Rajaji, JB Kriplani, Dr BC Roy, Jay Prakash Narayan, S M Joshi, NG Gore, Madhu Dandvate and Biju Patnaik and several other legends. In fact, the spirit of dissent and difference between Tilak and Gokhale, Gandhiji and Netaji, Pandit Nehru and Lohia has enriched and matured our national life and we need to carry forward this legacy.
Any Government with a mandate must be allowed to implement its promises but any opposition to its way of functioning need not be portrayed / painted as anti-national. In post Anna Hazare and Ramdev movement, Arun Jaitley in an article published in Pioneer on 27th February 2011 had said freedom of speech, right to assemble and demonstrate by holding Dharna and peaceful agitation are the basic features of democratic system, which he quoted from the Supreme Court decision to justify peaceful movements calling Governments to make effective “the exercise of such right”.
However, the realities on the ground are otherwise. A journalist of north east was reportedly jailed for some writing on charges of sedition, an IPC provision of imperial India that still retained and glorified in our statute to intimidate any voice of dissent, notwithstanding the fact that such provision was inserted in the statute to intimidate and jail freedom fighters. Lokmanya Tilak was arrested on charges of sedition for writing editorials against the British Government in his paper Keshari.
People had organized protests for his release after which he was freed. Later, Tilak and his followers campaigned to pressurize Congress to take a resolution against such imperial law right in the year 1907 on the eve of Surat Congress session.
This author during Emergency as a defence lawyer of a RSS l Raju Padhi, detained under DIR cited the Privy Council decision to seek his release from detention on charges of carrying some anti emergency leaflets but of no help.
It is imperative for our legislators and thinkers to debate and introspect on such issues for necessary reform of such existing legal measures. In this age of culture of vendetta, even a political rival can be branded as a criminal by implicating him in a narcotic or any serious case which he has to elaborate in an affidavit in the event of his filing a nomination to contest election. No law enforcers and any one would come to the rescue of such innocent citizens undergoing trauma for fake and baseless cases. The disposal of a case may take years and till then, he or she must carry on the brand of criminality on his neck in the eyes of the public.
Certain measures need to be considered to check manipulation of investigation process.
Investigation and law and order should be separated to achieve expertise in the investigation process.
A permanent grievance mechanism needs to be in place with every Police Superintendent for monitoring public complaints. The laws relating to criminal justice system needs reform to protect rule of law and prevent abuse and misuse of investigation process and enforce accountability.
The lower courts and supervising courts need to make critical check on random basis on the progress of investigation from the date of FIR to charge sheet / final report which may reduce abuse of authority as well as mechanical remands.
Every district Court should be designated as Human Right Courts to deal with complains of torture and violation of civil rights which eventually reduce burdens on the constitutional courts.
In case of false FIRs initiated in most of the matrimonial cases, citing either domestic violence or dowry or cruelty issues, the local police or the investigating agency need to ensure a thorough investigation before acting upon such FIRs so as to deliver justice to the innocents at the first sight as misuse of Section 498A has been judicially acknowledged in several cases in the past.
It is imperative to see that people implicated in peaceful public movements are not victim of any bar to contest any election. In the same context, if those who were arrested and convicted by defying emergency laws would have been barred to contest election then who would have restored back our democracy in 1977? Review of application on such bar is necessary to protect the right of dissent without which freedom is pmeaningless.
(The author is a former Deputy Speaker of Odisha Assembly and a senior legal practitioner. Views expressed are personal. Mobile: 9437412877)