Political influence does appear to make jurisprudence pliable. However, the motto of the country remains ‘truth alone triumphs'
Many consider the film, Nobody killed Jessica amongst the most significant reportage of this decade. For those who may not be tuned in, Jessica lal's murder by the ward of an influential person is a mega story. He obviously had the capacity to hire the best legal brains of the country and he did. The line of argument in the quote is from a distinguished defence lawyer, whose view seemed to be that no one actually killed Jessica. If she died by the going off of a firearm, it was not because someone pulled the trigger intentionally. In fact, it was anything but an intentional act. The firearm went off, killing Jessica and there is no knowing how it did. Clearly, if there was no crime, there can be no conviction!
This is an oft tried alibi in the courts. It is expected to do wonders in turning tables on the prosecution. The method has since widened its ambit. Of course, the most recent case in public view is the 2G case. Reportedly, a judge has opined that no crime was committed. Hence, no one need to be punished.
It is another matter that the reported judgement, in the columns, declared while exonerating the 17 accused — which is a veritable list of who's who — that the actual flaw was elsewhere. As reported, important officials of the then Prime Minister's Office, such as TKA Nair, kept former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the ‘dark'. By itself, it may not be a cognizable offence. Thus, it is that the Supreme Court itself, by implication, is being asked to take a close re-look at its judgement. In the case of Jessica, the argument of no crime did not work. Here it did.
There are other precedents of the use of such logic. During the time of Rashtriya Janata Dal chief lalu Prasad tenure as the Railway Minister, there was a stampede at the New Delhi railway station during a festive season. Predictable furore was followed by media outrage. An enquiry was instituted. No prizes for guessing the conclusion: “No one was responsible for the stampede”. large number of people perished; ‘it just happened'.
And the list goes on. Then there was the Jain hawala case. The Jain diaries allegedly documented the pay offs to politicians. They came from all parties. The Government of the day, with significant players like Narasimha Rao and an obliging Opposition, went into the whole act with great show of righteousness. Nothing much happened till a Public Interest litigation evoked the Supreme Court. The apex court in its turn demanded a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation. The CBI probe went on predictable lines. Everyone was finally exonerated. The amicus curiae to the case was credited with the view that the prosecution deliberately soft peddled the case.
There is nothing unusual about episodes narrated above. For the alleged default, the likes of TKA Nair almost always manage to get away. The likes of politically powerful like A Raja and company would be shown as having worked in public interest to have indeed popularised the use of the mobile. It was a strategic choice well worth an applaud! If indeed Swan Telecom Pvt ltd gave money to Kalaignar TV with connections to VIPs of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, then that might have been so. However, going ons of the 2G case and this act of ‘gifting' is only presumptively linked. If there was not even a link, where is the criminalityIJ
There is no need, however, to lose heart. Yes, the Indian judicial system rolls on for decades and in some case it may well touch even a century. (Recall the title dispute over the land at the demolished structure, lucknowIJ) Patience is a valued attribute in the land of saints. lalu Yadav currently is in jail. The facts of the doings of TKA Nair, et al, will someday see the light of credible explanation. Political influence does appear to make jurisprudence pliable. However, the motto of the country remains ‘truth alone triumphs'.
There is an understandable debate taking birth on whether India's police-judicial system is basically shoddy or that men of character and iron will are also in its rank. This gives hope. To persist with that hope may be the only sane option.
(The writer is a well-known management consultant)