In any civilised nation a policeman is regarded as the citizen’s friend. Sadly in our country a person who needs protection of the law dreads to approach a police station, especially if the person is a woman. Whilst wholesale condemnation of the police is not fair it is undeniable that molestation and torture are rampant and instances of custodial deaths in police lock ups are not wanting. Our Supreme Court has grappled with this problem. In its seminal judgments in D.K. Basu and Shyamsunder Trivedi, Justice Anand, speaking for the court, laid down a salutary principle that ‘‘If there is evidence that the injury was caused during the period when the person was in the police custody, the court may presume that the injury was caused by the police officer having the custody of that person during that period unless, the police officer proves to the contrary.’’ In a recent judgment the Supreme Court expressed its deep concern over the serious threat to human rights ‘‘when functionaries of the state, whose paramount duty is to protect the citizens and not to commit gruesome offences against them, in reality perpetrate them’’. The Bench laid the blame partly also on courts for their exaggerated adherence to and insistence upon the establishment of proof beyond every reasonable doubt because this ‘‘unrealistic approach’’ reinforces the belief in the mind of the police that no harm would come to them because of lack of evidence directly implicating them with death or torture. As a result ‘‘the community rightly gets disturbed. The cry of justice become louder and warrants immediate remedial measures.’’ All will agree.
Judicial power
Description of the judiciary as the weakest branch of the State having no power of the purse or the sword is outdated. Our age has witnessed an incredible increase in judicial power both nationally and internationally. Judicial activism of our courts has influenced other courts in the Commonwealth. The young South African Constitutional Court has rendered remarkable judgments, especially the one declaring the death penalty unconstitutional. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, established under the European Convention of Human Rights 1950, is a mini miracle. It has found many national laws and practices of countries, which are members of the Council of Europe, to be in breach of the Convention and has given relief to the injured parties. It has made a dent in the fortress of State sovereignty and domestic jurisdiction.
The latest on the scene is Europe’s Court of First Instance sitting in Luxembourg. It consists of 15 judges, who are appointed by European Union member states and serve six-year renewable terms, hear complaints from companies and individuals about decisions made by the European Commission in Brussels. Last year the court overturned a string of commission decisions to ban mergers. The hearings are in open court. Their decisions can be appealed to the European Court of Justice, a separate 15-judge final court of appeal occupying the same buildings. The flip side is that disposal of cases is not swift, the court is under-staffed and under-funded, and a final ruling could take up to three years. This has a familiar ring for us. Perhaps our dynamic Law Minister Arun Jaitley may suggest some fast track court measures.
Comparisons are often made between Mumbai and Delhi. At one time Delhi was regarded as an overgrown village and a cultural desert. Today Delhi can boast of several top class hotels and restaurants offering excellent varied cuisines, smart shops which specialise in haute couture. Delhi has its record shops and bookstore but there is nothing equivalent to Strand Book Shop or Rhythm House of Mumbai. Cultural activities in Delhi range from Indian dances and musical recitals to Western classical music and also a bit of jazz. There is no dearth of exhibitions, seminars, lectures, book discussions et. al. If you are up at sunrise in Delhi you can be in the country side within an hour and savour the delights of Surajkund, Sultanpur Bird Sanctuary (whatever remains of it), Dhouj and Dumdama Lake. Here Delhi has a distinct edge over Mumbai. Where Mumbai scores over Delhi is in the field of good manners. Mumbai dinners may begin later but guests who have accepted invitations do not fail to turn up or apologise for their absence. Curiously bad manners are most prevalent amongst high officials and constitutional functionaries possibly because they are too busy conscientiously discharging their duties. And some media personalities take the cake. You may wait indefinitely for them to turn up. But how can we forget that they are the Fourth Estate and sustain our democracy by their fair and objective reporting. Surely they cannot be expected to bother about such trivialities like lack of good manners which upsets an oldie Bombay bawa.