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