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.
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.