The Ten Amendments
By Thomas Easaw
man needs is justice and nothing else", is the
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, irrespective of money, colour, caste, creed or
brains 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 defined by Thomas Easaw, "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
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.
If justice is to be declared a man's birthright a few amendments
in the present day Law are required and so I propose
"The Ten Amendments"
Every other profession in the world, excepting the
legal profession, has a certain amount of
accountability attached to it. This official immunity
given to the legal profession has not aided the
interest of justice for the human kind and this can be
prima facie understood from sheer logic itself without
citing any instances. This unaccountability of the
legal system is the root cause of all manmade evil and
of the delay and cost synonymous with justice today.
It is sad to note that law makers the world
over, while making laws have been formulating
provisions for their own safety and privileges first,
than protecting the interest of justice for humanity.
The ‘action taken in good faith’ clause allows the
judiciary to evade accountability. Unless and until
the judiciary is kind and generous enough to forego
some of the privileges that it enjoys today, absolute
justice will remain a distant reality.
Let us take the situation of a death sentence being
proved wrong by an appropriate authority and on the
other hand let us suppose this death sentence was that
of a poor man who in the ordinary course, based on his
meager resources, would not have had any other option
than to forego his life. But if fortunately he takes
the courage because of his actual innocence, borrows
the resources entirely on somebody else's mercy,
goes for an appeal and wins his life back – is it
wrong for at least the victim to believe that some
sort of accountability has to be affixed on the judge.
Judges should be made accountable for the judgments
that they make and a death sentence if proved wrong,
if not properly explainable by the judge, should
amount to attempt to murder or to at least some lesser
degree of responsibility, than the absolute
unaccountability of today. The judiciary should be
made accountable and an accountable judiciary should
be held supreme.
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.
For those who feel that they cannot take the pressures
of the job of a judge can always look for another job,
where as a citizen has nowhere else to go for justice
than to the judiciary.
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 taken in good faith’ clause protects
an officer to the extent that he is not accountable at
all, appealing to a higher authority may bring
temporary justice to the complainant, but does not
stop the corrupt officer from officially continuing with
his corrupt decisions. It is not only enough to book
an officer when he accepts bribe, 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.
corruption is everywhere, does not mean that everyone
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.
But I believe that the propriety of the judiciary
should not 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.
Judges, worldwide, 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. It is
therefore the need of the age to have a special
recruitment system with the highest standards and
remuneration for judges.
Lawyers should also be held accountable for their acts
and deeds like everyone else. When somebody helps a
criminal, is not the helper a part of the crime? Like
we do not let the robber free, saying his profession
is robbery; 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, which has only resulted in the abetment
of crime. 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.
And this unaccountability for lawyers, is the cause of
the undue delay and cost synonymous with justice
today. Such accountability 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, for he is the one who
has led us over the years, by his relentless struggle
and sacrifice, to this platform from where I am trying
to reach out to you now. It will also prevent the two
other great injustices, viz. delay of justice and
cost for justice will stand truly delivered, only when
delivered promptly, and that too, free of any cost.
If there is a provision for punishing lawyers,
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 my country, India, where more than 50%
of the people are below the poverty line and more than
30% 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 means 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. This is human rights violation. It is
only a citizen’s basic right to be able to seek
justice without any cost and without the humiliation
of being declared a pauper and so collection of court
fee should be abolished.
Discretionary power is what causes corruption
and 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.
Fine in lieu of imprisonment is one of life's
greatest injustices against the poor. This is an
exclusive escape route for the rich and wealthy. 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. It will only be when, punishment in the
form of fine is scrapped, (except in the case of very trivial
offences where only repetition calls for imprisonment)
will justice prevail in any land.
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 rules should be stopped at any cost,
for a civilized society cannot let an unaccountable
judiciary to set precedents. Law making should be left
to the representative council of the people of the
land and any important decision should be legislated
at the earliest opportunity, than to leave it in the
secret folds of certain decisions accessible only to
knowledgeable lawyers and not to the common citizen,
and thus setting the legal system free of its
secretive and uncertain nature. But this
law making should be without the intervention of the
judiciary, for in a democracy you cannot rule out the
possibility of the wrong people winning the elections
or dictatorial interests overtaking humanitarian ones.
In which case, who else can come to the rescue but an
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 so that the
common citizen can comprehend it, obey it and live by
When there are so many loop holes and
unaccountability in our present day legal system, it
would be absolutely unjust to implement capital
punishment for two reasons
The essential reason for saying that one should not
take life is because one cannot give back life.
If it is a crime when a citizen kills, how can it not
be a crime when the government or the court implements
Secondly when it is blatantly clear that our justice
delivery system is not foolproof, it would be greatly
unjust to force somebody to end his life under
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 to do today
The Justice Theory
All themes, theories, lyrics, music,
vocals , direction and engineering
by Thomas Easaw.
THOMAS EASAW LTD.,
95, Jawahar Nagar,
Cochin 682020, India.