Quality of Judgment be not Strained

   

                                             Quality of Judgment be not Strained

Jayalalitha, Salman Khan and Ramalinga Raju have  three things in common. All of them have been to jail, all of them have been let out on bail and all their cases had the elasticity to be stretched for many years. Jayalalitha has the record of dragging her case for eighteen years, Salman for thirteen years and Raju for six years. The trial, the lower court verdict and the overturning of the lower court verdict by the higher court and the grant of bail have raised uncomfortable questions about judicial pronouncements and the privileges enjoyed by law offenders if they have the status and wealth to aid them unlike the millions of poor under trials, languishing in jails and waiting for the verdict. These underprivileged offenders cannot make bail and their indefinite waiting is for the pronouncement of  verdict that will send them back into the confinement of prison or a release into a hostile world that will frown upon them as pariahs or outcasts. It is like waiting for a Godot to liberate them though they have no clue about who the Godot will be or when he will appear and what kind of relief he will provide. Who knows if they will prefer their present  state of incarceration  that ensures at least a roof over their heads and at least two meals however poor and measly they maybe than to lie on the pavement and be run over!

More than 3 crore cases are pending across the country as of today of which approximately 65000 are with the Supreme Court, 35 lakhs with the High court and a whopping 2.6 crores with the lower court. After a protracted trial in the case of the celebrities mentioned above, they were sentenced to imprisonment by the lower courts. The speed with which the jail sentence of the lower court was set aside by the higher courts is illustrative of the famous saying, “Show me the face and I will show you the rule”.

This article is not an attempt to dissect the judgment on the basis of all that had been in the media for the last several years nor is it a criticism on the higher court ruling in favour of the accused but it seeks to show that in the hierarchy of courts, the truism “What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” does not operate. The courts do not follow this stock platitude as the poor and the rich cannot have the same kind of sauce.  What is more intriguing is the built- in provision whereby the accused who receives punishment from the lower court is allowed to appeal to the higher courts. What seems right to the lower court is not necessarily right for the higher courts. This is a covert acknowledgement that the judges are ranked wise, wiser and wisest depending on where they pronounce their verdict from. Of course appealing to the higher courts and engaging lawyers whose fees are rocket high in accordance with their  climb  up the judicial ladder, cost huge sums that only the wealthy can afford. In the three cases cited above, engaging with higher courts has resulted in overturning the lower court orders–in the case of Jayalalitha, a clean chit, in the case of the other two, grant of bail till their appeals are heard in the higher courts.

              Such judgmental ranking is only for the judiciary. For example, no patient will ever experiment getting operated first in a municipal hospital and when not satisfied proceed to a district hospital and finally to a five-star hospital. By the time the patient ascends the five-star clinic in search of cure, s/he will be ready for admission into ICU. Physical illness cannot wait for intermittent visits to hospitals with varied rankings and such a bizarre experiment will prove a disaster, if not a fatal one. This is particularly true of the vast number of poor patients. Similar  is the story of students. They cannot be moving from one college to another in search of learning the same course.  Economics honours in St.Stephens College or Lady Sri Ram  College will be equivalent to a study in a Five star college. But only a few are eligible and can afford to be in such institutions This does not mean a student can be roving from college to college in search of a degree. Not all the teachers in a highly ranked college  are the wisest among academicians nor all those poorly paid in lowly ranked colleges are of inferior quality. Similarly in Universities there used to be revaluation if a student felt dissatisfied with his results. The revaluation methodology was to hide the marks given by the first examiner in the answer sheet and hand it over to two other examiners who had to give the marks confidentially in separate sheets. The examination branch will select two sets of marks that are close to each other and take an average. Now even the universities have done away with reevaluation and marks given once stand and cannot be changed. At best there is only re -checking of the total and not of the answers. It is the same with purchases. Most of us cannot afford changing vehicles in search of a superior one. There can be Benz, there can be Volvo, there can be Audi  and there can be Volkswagon,   but a smaller and less priced car can well serve the owner to his satisfaction. The overpriced and oversized cars may have more special features, but they do not drive out the less priced and smaller sized cars because the latter are inferior in quality. This is true of mobiles whose main function is to provide immediate connection with the outer world. For the poor, any phone at comparatively low cost is fin and s/he does not change the pone for those with What’s APP features  or 4G/5G/6G etc.

             But strangely the hierarchical ranking and the power given to the judges belonging to the topmost rung often belittle the judiciary of the lower ring. Should there be an amendment to stop this practice of appealing to the higher courts because the lower court’s verdict is unfavourable? With court cases piling up to 3 crores, isn’t it a sheer waste of time to go through the same case three times in expectation of a favourable verdict?  Can there be an amendment which restricts cases to be heard only in one court and the verdict to be pronounced after consultations with two judges, one each from the other two courts.

             Maybe my reasoning is flawed as I cannot back it with a sound knowledge of legal procedures. My gratuitous suggestions are commonsensical exhibiting native sound judgment than based on specialized knowledge. Since I do not understand the rationale behind the existing law that permits appeals to higher courts, such suggestions given gratis may be misconstrued as contempt of court. I hope I do not have to face the lower court for the contempt offence and then forced  make my way up the ladder to the other two courts to suspend any harsh judgment the lower court would deign to pronounce on my unbecoming behaviour.