My legal writing now has its own home at legalanalysis.in. This piece stays here as part of the archive. For newer legal analysis, please visit legalanalysis.in.
This write-up is ‘a priori’ response of a law student to the existing distressing circumstances, with no intent whatsoever of showing any solidarity with any ideology or organisation or malice towards anyone.
The Constitution of India opens with a Preamble which assures “Justice- social, economic and political” to “We, the people.” Justice is the crowning glory of all the virtues. Being an abstract concept it is provided several connotations. However, the tangible manifestation of this concept is witnessed in form of judgments delivered by the courts of law. Justice in the simplest terms can be defined as an outcome of the process adopted for the minimisation of conflict of interests between subjects of the society. Right from the outset, judiciary has been imparted the responsibility to accomplish the onerous task of dispensation of justice. The sacrosanct nature of the value of justice increases manifold within the constitutional ambit, owing to its comprehensive inclusion in the whole scheme in its social, economic and political incarnations.
Administration of justice has been subject of stringent scrutiny and harsh criticism in recent times. Most flagrant illustration is the conviction of human rights activist Dr. Binayak Sen. He has been awarded by many reputed organisations and associations for his altruistic and meaningful contribution towards the amelioration of the health related problems of the poor. Moreover, his active participation in upholding the regime of human rights as an active member of PUCL (People’s Union for Civil Liberties) – the bandwagon organisation in field of human rights- has been commendable. His recent conviction for commission of offence of sedition and other anti-national activities (under local laws) has received unanimous disapproval throughout the country. The fact that, a doctor who sacrificed an easily available lavish life so that he may serve the poor in the remotest areas of our country, has been the only melodious note amidst the cacophony surrounding the whole issue. Society at large is facing the soul-stirring question regarding the recognition of morality and simplicity within its framework.
General perception which exists about reasons of his arrest is that he dared to raise his voice against the state’s oppression in garb of eradication of Naxalite and Maoist groups. Role played by him as a dissident of the state backed vigilante group of Salwa Judum may also have been the guiding factor. It is in this background, that when he visited the ailing prisoners accused of having committed anti-national acts, in his capacity as office bearer of PUCL and most importantly as doctor, that he was allegedly framed under the offence of sedition and relevant provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The purported reasons which form base of accusations against Dr. Sen are that of acting as middle link in exchange of letters between the members of antinational organisations. This charge is levied upon even when all his visits were under the scrutiny of jail officials. Availability of various anti-national literatures has also been attributed to him.
Arrested in 2007, he was denied bail for inordinate period of two years and more. His persecution of incarceration continued and came to a brief halt, when eminent personalities worldwide started a campaign in his favour claiming him to be righteous in his conduct. It is then that the Apex Court granted him bail. Non granting of bail to an innocuous human rights activist in, in absence of sufficient evidence was blatant violation of the general principle “bail is a right and jail is an exception” expounded by Supreme court in number of decisions. The sojourn of his hard earned release from the bars came to an abrupt end with his conviction by the Raipur Sessions Court. He was held guilty of sedition (dealt under section 124 A of Indian Penal Code, 1860) and relevant provisions of UAPA. This conviction seems to be due to many reasons. First of all, law pertaining sedition is a colonial relic which is not in consonance with the constitutional principles which govern the democratic set-up. Even if one sticks by the provision of sedition as contained under s.124 A, the offence seems to have not been committed so as to attract the aforesaid provision. None of the actions of Dr. Sen resulted in incitement of violence which is a sine qua non for conviction under the charges of sedition. Given the interpretation as followed in the present case, every disapprobative act against the government shall amount to sedition; which will be nothing less than heinous murder of democratic foundations upon which the monument of Constitution stands.
Moreover, the evidences, based on which the verdict has been reached upon are seemingly enshrouded in the blanket of “doubt”. The letters which are being termed to be pivotal in conviction do not successfully constitute seditious materials. The allegations are also rife that certain evidences were not obtained in accordance with the specified procedures. Evidences were planted for false implication. Some of them in unsealed manner were admitted. Conviction despite presence of so many dubious factors is clear violation of the tenet of criminal justice administration that “crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt”. Dr. Sen has been sentenced to life imprisonment which is unabashed betrayal of the principle of proportionality which guides the process of ascertainment of quantum of punishment for commission of any offence. Life imprisonments in lieu of efforts for the restoration ad conservation of human rights by a dedicated activist having unblemished record hitherto is indeed an exaggeration.
Preceding paragraphs are based on perusal of various reports published in esteemed newspapers and magazines. However, I sincerely feel that this case is just a small part in a big scheme. What perturbs me the most is distortion of the dimensions of justice from its original position on the axis of Preamble within the constitutional sphere. Independence of India was hard earned. It incurred innumerable sacrifices, with sole motive of making available to the erstwhile trampled common souls a system benign and just in its traits. On paper we succeeded also, by means of enactment of a magnificent Constitution which attempted to establish a “rule of law and justice” devoid of any anomaly. Lately, however it is reprehensibly observed that the judicial system is not serving the ends of common man. In fact “clout” has emerged as the supreme governing factor. I am not a cynic attempting to paint insipid picture of the system! In fact, I want to stress upon the continuous neglect in the field of implementation of the laws in just and fair manner sans any indifference.
Present case of Dr. Sen in its aftermath has shaken the faith of people in the system of administration of justice. Not because the person convicted belonged to any organisation or that he is perpetrator of a particular ideology, but for the reason that it diminished the light of hope for the grass root people. This case underlined boldly the general prevalent opinion that law plays in the hands of the rich and powerful and to the disadvantage of the common man. Biggest damage which is done by this apparently fallacious judgment is that, if it is affirmed by the appellate court then the assiduously built structure of human rights will suffer a shock, strong enough to crumble it. On the other hand, if the decision is reversed image of the lowest tier of judiciary will be irreparably tarnished. This will be the most latent harmful effect having far-reaching consequences.
Points raised herein assume enormous importance for the reason that judgments like these do not only reflect degeneration of some routine general values, but that of “JUSTICE”- most sanctimonious of all. Judgments, it is to remembered, are not delivered merely by the officers of the court in their official capacity, but they emanate from those who are considered as embodiment of justice. Slightest aberration causes inconceivably huge adversarial repercussions. It is hence expected from the “noblest of the trinity” of governance that, justice is not only done by them but it must also seem to be done. Time has come when we need to galvanise the legal milieu towards attainment of the constitutional goals in real sense rather than enjoying a disparaging pachydermic existence. Perhaps, then only would we be able to save the constitutional dimensions of justice from distortions and deviations which place precariously the libertarian principles imbibed deeply in every word of the momentous document called the Constitution of India. May be then, can “We, the people” proclaim with utmost fervour and belief that “JUSTICE” indeed is the crowning glory of all virtues.
Leave a Reply