The Supreme Court has rightly dismissed Rashtriya Janata Dal chief lalu Prasad's plea to shift the ongoing trial in the fodder scam case against him in Ranchi, Jharkhand, to another judge. Mr Prasad's contention that he would not get justice because a sibling of the presiding judge was married to his political rival was not only a figment of his imagination but it also came late in the day.
Evidence has already been placed before the court and arguments have more or less concluded. All that now remains is for the judge to pronounce his verdict. As the apex court pointed out, Mr Prasad had every occasion since the trial began to raise such objections. He could have done so when the charges had been framed against him in 2000 and when the trial began. His grievance that he does not expect an impartial trial is funny, because the trial proceedings are as good as done now. It cannot be that Mr Prasad did not realise the futility of raising such specious objections. Obviously, his aim was to further delay the pronouncement of the verdict in the high-profile case which has been dragging on since 1997. Had he succeeded in his attempt to have a new judge, the entire process would have had to perhaps begin from scratch or that the verdict would have become victim to more legal delays on account of a new judge taking charge. In any case, it appears that some arguments have still to be advanced, for which the apex court has given additional time to the judge to pronounce his verdict. Mr Prasad cannot now avoid facing the D-day soon. It's been a long, long wait for justice.
Apart from the fact that his objection had been terribly mistimed, his attempt to cast doubts over the integrity of the presiding judge is deplorable. The RJD supremo did not have any valid premise to question the impartiality of the judge. Merely because the judge is related to Mr Prasad's political rival who is a Minister in the Bihar Government, does not necessarily mean that he would be biased. The conduct of a judge is determined by the manner in which he handles a trial and on the legal soundness of his verdict. The Bihar heavyweight could not cite a single credible incident that had led him to doubt the judge, and ended up looking silly as a result of his misadventure. He could have thought of some other tactic to delay the inevitable.
Questioning the judiciary without basis is a singularly unsound tactic because it places the judge in a dilemma. If he were to give a favourable verdict in favour of the accused, he would be slammed for going out of the way to sound non-partisan; if he ruled against the accused, he would draw the ire of the “I said so” crowd which would naturally have the accused at the forefront. One hopes that the special judge in Mr Prasad's case refuses to heed such pressures and does justice. From all accounts, he has performed creditably until now. He has to maintain that record in the last mile, so to say.