It is not unprecedented to have a higher court overturn the ruling of a lower court. So a contrary verdict alone does not set apart in legal history and public memory the Delhi high court’s judgment in the Priyadarshini Mattoo case. What does is its symbolism. Together with Jessica Lal and Nitish Katara, Mattoo had come to represent — to millions in India made familiar with them by the media — the travesty of justice. Their cases revealed the deftness with which the nexus of the rich and the powerful could cut short the long arm of the law. The verdict assures that such damage is still not irreversible. But if the high court’s condemnation of the previous judgment for its perversity and its assault on the “judicial conscience” is taken into account, one cannot but acknowledge that some permanent damage has already been done. It will be difficult to wipe off from the public mind the ease with which the principle of judicial fairness was trampled on in the earlier court. The verdict will also fool no one into believing that one favourable judgment will set things right for the thousands of others for whom justice remains elusive. Some of these unfortunate people may belong to the same city and the same social stratum that Mattoo, Lal and Katara came from, but most will be found among those sections of society which cannot lay claim to any influence that will take their faces and names into the public domain. Perhaps the media need to work harder to draw attention to their plight. They no less deserve the candle-light vigils, demonstrations and public activism that revived interest in Mattoo and will continue to retain the spotlight on Lal and Katara.

But it is not judicial integrity alone that will assure them justice. The legal process involves an arm of the state machinery whose position has been severely compromised by the lurid details in each of the three high-profile cases. In Mattoo’s case, as repeatedly seen in Lal’s, the police have consistently waylaid the course of justice by conniving with the guilty, by suppressing evidence or by misinforming the court. No legal strictures, be it on the rights of witnesses or on confessions, can work unless those implementing them do their job honestly. The court directives on police reform need to be put to work conscientiously. It would also be necessary to take seriously the prime minister’s suggestions for judicial reform.