Misunderstanding Justice
A warped sense of national interest
Tucked inside a story on the rejection of bail for a terror accused is this bit,
However, Rehman’s bail plea could not be heard on Monday as his lawyer withdrew his vakalatnama, a document by which the party authorises an advocate to represent them.
“I am withdrawing the vakalatnama in the interest of nation,” Advocate Santosh Kumar Suman had said in his application.[link]
Previously, there have been reports of bar associations issuing decrees to its members prohibiting them from representing terror suspects. Other lawyers have gone one step ahead and actually assaulted their fellow lawyers who chose to defend terror suspects.
In each case, the justification is the same: national interest. Not only does such behavior violate the guidelines of the Bar Council of India, it distorts the meaning of national interest. India is a constitutional democracy. Vigilante justice has no place in our constitutional democracy. The constitution guarantees every accused the right to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty. There can be a debate on differing standards of evidence in case of terror suspects and other procedural issues, but there can be no debate on that they deserve a fair trial. By refusing to represent suspects and worse, by preventing others from doing so, the lawyers are subverting the legal system. They are neither upholding the Indian constitution nor national interest.
The government must step into ensure that the accused are provided public defenders and it must ensure that these defenders take their job seriously and do it to the best of their ability.
Another needless controversy has been brewing over the decision of Jamia Milia Islamia University to defend two of the suspects caught by Delhi Police in the aftermath of the Jamia Nagar encounter. In its defence, the university has pointed out that it is defending two of its students who have not been proven guilty in a court of law.
It is a fair argument. While it is true that the university is largely funded by state money, academic institutions cannot be compared to other government institutions. While this is not the time to join the larger debate on academic autonomy, suffice to point out that the university’s decision to offer legal aid does not amount to standing against the government. Neither it can be construed as defending terrorists.
In fact, needless attention is focused on who is defending the accused. The state’s should concentrate on aggressively investigating the case, hiring the best prosecutors and marshalling all the available evidence so as to secure convictions.
Despite the tardy pace, the Indian justice system is largely fair. There are many who seek to perpetuate the sense of Muslim persecution by underplaying its strengths and overstating its weaknesses. Such behavior only strengthens their hand.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
