Discussion Forum

Join News Letter

Iraq War

Peak Oil

Climate Change

US Imperialism

Palestine

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Globalisation

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Gujarat Pogrom

WSF

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

Contact Us

Fill out your
e-mail address
to receive our newsletter!
 

Subscribe

Unsubscribe

 

In Defence Of Ram

By Farzana Versey

24 December, 2006
Countercurrents.org

They have been rubbishing him, and now they can gloat over his 'duds' because the courts have pronounced Manu Sharma guilty and he has been given a life term. The prosecution demanded a death sentence, but the judges deemed that there was a possibility of the 29-year-old reforming. By taking up the defence of the accused in the controversial Jessica Lal murder case, Ram Jethmalani exposed the nature of justice, the media and society.

It is easy to say that he starts storms in tea cups. Let us ask why it is that tea cups get prime time. By asking certain uncomfortable questions the lawyer has in fact tried to reveal the farcical nature of this cucumber-sandwich society.

These candle-light vigilantes have little care in the world for what really delayed justice means.

I am cynical about this new-fangled "fast-track" justice that has become the flavour in high-profile cases. Who is pushing them? Is justice the prevailing credo or is it merely justice as seen to be done? Isn't this a version of playing to the gallery to make sure that it all looks good and above-board?

Take a look at the other case of Priyadarshini Mattoo who was raped and murdered on January 23, 1996. Almost four years later, the trial court set her rapist free. The judge had memorably pronounced, "Although I know he is the man who committed the crime, I acquit him, giving him the benefit of the doubt.''

Santosh Singh got married, had a child and was also a practising lawyer.

Then, when the Page 3 denizens started appearing on Page 1 because they had money and clout and discovered they wanted respectability beyond cigar lounges, the whispering gallery began to shout for justice. They picked up cases with as much care as they would solitaires at a jewellery store. In September of this year, after an appeal by the CBI, the Delhi High Court began the hearings again. On Oct 17, 2006, Santosh Singh was convicted for rape and murder. Reports gushed about the "media persons and a number of civil society activists who had tirelessly campaigned for justice".

For almost seven years nothing is done and then within a month it is conscience-awakening time?

There is talk about how the reason the cases were quashed is because the criminals were well-connected people.

If that is the excuse, then what are we applauding? Why are the courts and judges giving out such different verdicts? Why are the police changing their tune – they arrest eye-witnesses saying they could be conspirators, and then they say they are the keys to the cases and could help the cops. Are we still expected to have faith in the judiciary and the System only because it has become a public tamasha?

I think the pressures come from all sides. And by everyone. For those who cry foul about 'trial by the media', may I ask why they are getting so thrilled by the media involvement in these cases? Why did the media not come into the picture immediately after the 'wrong verdicts' and ask for the re-opening of the cases? Where were the fancy 'sting operators'?

Like any other citizen I am glad that rapists and murderers are being convicted. But I also know that this was possible because the victims were of the same class as the media persons.

How many cases from the rural areas come before the courts, forget them being re-opened? How many from the slums?

Let us apply similar, if not the same, standards for people across the board.

After Ram Jethmalani took up the Jessica case, instead of discussing the issue purely along legal grounds, the glossy segments of newspapers talked to those who know nothing about courts and the judiciary for their opinion. They oozed treacle. They even cornered the advocate's daughter-in-law. She said she was not happy with his taking up the case. Page 3's heart was bleeding on Page 1.

Would anyone ask a senior lawyer's young family members about cases where the victim was not a model/film star/industrialist? Isn't this a ridiculous demotion of the idea of the 'civil society' everyone has suddenly become aware of?

Why did they react with such self-righteousness when Jethmalani implied there was more to it than Jessica refusing a drink (she was bar-tending at the posh joint that night)? The murmurs of protest were because they say since the victim is dead she cannot defend herself.

We ought not to sit on a moral high horse simply because the media has indulged in far worse forms of character assassination in the past. And what is this about the dead cannot defend herself? There are so many cases where even the living cannot do so. What about women who are humiliated if they ever pick up the courage to take rape cases to the court? How can they defend themselves when they are asked inane questions and then have to go through a media trial about parts of their body?

If society is all that civil then where are the candle-light vigils for Imrana, a poor woman from Muzaffarnagar, who was raped by her father-in-law?

Isn't this case equally deserving of fast-track justice?

(Farzana Versey can be contacted at [email protected] )

http://farzana-versey.blogspot.com/



Leave A Comment
&
Share Your Insights

 

Get CC HeadlinesOn your Desk Top

Join
Discussion Forum

 

 

Search Our Archive



Our Site

Web