Law vs the mob

That Ajmal Amir Kasab is in the wrong is not really questioned by anyone his actions were broadcast over television,his later confessions cemented his guilt; his punishment is yet to be decided. Undoubtedly,he has become the face of 26/11: the baby-faced,gun-toting youth and his cohorts terrorised India through tactics never before tried. Yet,given the nature of the Indian justice system,the courts must now try him,and the lawyer duly appointed to defend him is government legal aid panel lawyer Anjali Waghmare. Amongst the primary human rights,the right to a fair trial is quintessential to a liberal democracy; and any diversion would be an abomination to the rule of law.

Hours after she accepted Judge Tahilyanis decision to present Kasabs case,an angry mob collected outside Waghmares house; her property was attacked,her actions were deemed incorrect by a hundred-odd people. Naturally,she is now uncertain about whether defending Kasab is a wise move. This culture of intimidation is nothing new; in December,when lawyers had among themselves decided not to defend Kasab,an unknown criminal lawyer broke the deadlock by declaring himself willing to counsel Kasab. Unsurprisingly,his house too became a venue for stone pelting.

Violence of this sort does not only intimidate the person involved but it impedes the natural process of justice; it takes the rule of law outside the jurisdiction of the duly designated,and places it with the mob. The Indian legal system recognises the right to a free and fair trial; that is its bedrock,central to its very ethos. This marginal fraction of society may think they are acting in the name of law and order,but they overlook the very fundamentals of the law. The mob is misguided and uninformed if they are under the illusion that such actions aid democracy or the fight against terrorism. Far from it: such displays of public outrage unnecessarily challenge the system,making of what should be a simple case a prolonged headache. As Blaise Pascal wisely said,Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical. Hence the view that despite the crime,the person accused should and will be tried.