by Thomas Easaw

What man needs is justice and nothing else, is the "Justice Theory".

He does not need capitalism, communism or communalism and when justice is in place, everything else will be in place.

Justice for only the rich is capitalism and justice for only the poor is communism and justice for everybody is the Justice Theory.

From time immemorial, man has been in the pursuit of food, clothing, shelter, security, love, faith, comfort, knowledge, recognition, fame, wealth, supremacy, equality and freedom - when what he actually should have pursued was justice.

Justice and not freedom, as popularly believed, should have been a man's birthright - for my freedom ends where your freedom begins.

Justice, as I define it, is my freedom, rights and responsibilities peacefully co-existing with yours.

For centuries, we have remained divided on the basis of creed, greed and freedom. For once let us all unite for the sake of justice and for peace ever after.

The Justice Theory argues that justice should be declared a man's birthright, so that every man would be able to demand it, rather than beg and plead for it as he is forced today.

But if justice has to be delivered properly and promptly, some fundamental changes are required to be implemented.

Every other profession in the world, except the lawyer's and the judge's, has a certain amount of accountability attached to it. This official immunity given to lawyers and judges has only resulted in the abetment of crime. And this unaccountability of the legal system, is the root cause of all manmade evil and of the delay and cost synonymous with justice today.

When somebody helps a criminal, is not the helper a part of the crime? And just like we do not let the robber free, saying that his profession is robbery, the lawyers should also not be set free, but be punished, along with the convicted, in the proportion of their role in the malpractices committed, if any.

 

It is high time that the civilized society took objection to the undue relaxation given to such professions. This does not mean that anybody giving a glass of water or appearing for the accused should be punished. But the lawyer should be punished at least  when it is proved that he has helped the defendant/plaintiff to destroy evidence, manipulate witnesses or commit similar crimes, which are punishable under the Law.

 

Such a legislation would greatly reduce the number of false cases which is what causes this undue delay of justice. The hefty court fee and attendant expenses, expected to prevent nuisance litigation, have only left the poor in the lurch.

 

Such an amendment would bring a sense of honor and pride to the righteous lawyer and also prevent the two other great injustices, delay of justice and cost. Justice will stand truly delivered, only when it is delivered promptly, and that too, free of any cost.

 

If the provision for punishment of lawyers is legislated, then the number of false cases would be greatly reduced, facilitating an atmosphere for the abolition of court fee. The collection of court fee has been one of the greatest human rights violations in the history of mankind. In a country like India, where more than fifty percent of the people are below the poverty line and more than thirty percent just manages to live hand to mouth, it is very clear that about 80% of the population cannot afford to pay court fee. This directly implies that only 20% of the population in my country has access to the judiciary and the remaining 80% are prevented from approaching the court by predefined conditions such as hefty court fee.

Judges, the world over, should not be recruited through political appeasement or by popular vote, nor should practicing lawyers be made judges. Their recruitment, training and maintenance should be a class separately above, so that only the best in capability and integrity would opt for it.

With the kind of respect bestowed on them, judges should be held accountable for the judgments that they make. i.e. A death sentence, when proved wrong, if not properly explainable by the judge, should actually amount to attempt to murder or to at least some lesser degree of responsibility, than the absolute unaccountability of today.

For those who feel that this is an intimidating situation for the judge, a proper explanation as to why he judged so, based on the available evidence, would suffice. And for the rest of those who believe that this is a Damocles' sword - indeed it is. But is it not better to have it on the head of a few people who are capable, qualified, trained and paid for it, than to have it over every other human being on this planet, for the fear of a callous judgment? The prime duty of the judiciary is to deliver justice, than to dilute regulations in order to accommodate mediocrity.

This accountability would ensure that the lower court judgments are just and fair, making the judiciary prompt and cost effective and forcing all other government departments to fall in line. When this accountability percolates down to the government departments, corruption can be plugged absolutely. When the ‘action done in good faith’ clause protects an officer, appealing to a higher authority may bring justice to the complainant, but does not stop a corrupt officer from officially continuing with his corrupt decisions. It is not only enough to book an officer when he accepts bribes, but it is also necessary to book him when he decides unjustly for vengeance or for sheer arrogance.

An accountable lower court will also eradicate the unspoken public fear that there is a nexus between various forces to prolong the judicial process, in order to extract more.

I believe that discretionary power is what causes corruption. Discretionary power, if removed from all facets of the Law will plug corruption absolutely. The provision to punish arbitrarily, vested as discretionary power on the judge, would only make justice to precariously perch on lawyer's skill, if not already overtaken by influence, power, prejudice or corruption, in order to get the judgment proclaimed at its discretionary minimum or maximum.

Power does not corrupt, only discretionary power does and power with accountability turns out to be mere duty.

I believe that fine in lieu of imprisonment is one of life's greatest injustices against the poor. For the poor both imprisonment and fine are great pains, whereas for the rich only one of them is. The Law around the world has been an evolvement of the law of the kings and feudal lords, which always had a provision of an unjust favoritism to help the rich and the powerful. Only when the punishment in the form of fine (except in the case of very trivial offences where only repetition calls for imprisonment) is scrapped, will justice prevail in any land. If the judiciary is held accountable, then everything else down the line will follow suit, and corruption will be considered history. 

The present practice of the judiciary relying heavily on prior higher court judgments should be totally done away with, because the exact context, the related evidence, whether the case was properly represented and contested & whether the concerned parties were genuine, cannot be ascertained. As of now, any two conniving lawyers can sabotage any law of the land, if one of them is willing to lose for the sake of gain. This back-door provision for creating laws and sub-rules should be stopped at any cost. Law making should be left to the representative council of the people of the land, but not without the intervention of the judiciary. In a democracy, you cannot rule out the possibility of a band of scoundrels winning the elections or in certain other context, a dictator, trying to overthrow the rule of Law, in which case who else can come to the rescue, but an accountable judiciary. Therefore the judiciary should be made accountable and an accountable judiciary has to be held supreme.

The evasive tendency of adding law after law, without affixing accountability for judges and lawyers, has made the entire system bulky and cumbersome. This has led to a predicament where a judge cannot entertain an argument without the exact section/subsection numerically specified, or where a lawyer cannot specialize in more than one stream of the Law, even after a lifetime's effort. At the same time, it is expected of even the commonest of men to know the Law, for ignorance of the Law is not considered an excuse. How unjust can injustice be? This is a clear case of dividing the world on the basis of knowledge, where the well informed intimidates the very existence of the less informed. The Law definitely needs to be simplified.

Furthermore, when there are so many loop holes and unaccountability in the legal system, it would be absolutely unjust to implement capital punishment for two reasons.

1) I believe that the essential reason for saying that one should not take life is because one cannot give it back. If it is a crime when a citizen kills, how can it not be a crime when the government or the court implements capital punishment? If the justification is that, it is to stop such criminals from living on earth, how is that it becomes a crime when a citizen helps the court in accomplishing the same goal.

2) Secondly when it is blatantly clear that our justice delivery system worldwide is not foolproof, and when considering the logic in the previous statement, it would be greatly unjust to force somebody to end his life under judicial supervision.

Just because corruption is everywhere, does not mean that everybody is corrupt. The very fact, that the earth still spins on its axis without fail or falter, is reason enough to believe that the good forces are still in command. I believe that the propriety of the judiciary should not only depend on the goodness of the judge, but on the goodness of the system, so that justice can be expected of it as a right. The same applies to the executive and the legislature also. My intention is beyond pointing out corruption. I am here to suggest a solution and the Justice Theory offers it.