The curtain falls

Sir — The judgment by the apex court upholding Delhi High Court’s life sentence to Manu Sharma for murdering Jessical Lal would bolster the image of the judiciary. (“‘Final door’ closed on Jessica murderer”, April 20). Son of a top political leader, Sharma hails from an influential family, while Lal was from an ordinary background with little personal wealth or connection. In developing countries like India, where corruption has riddled through every aspect of public life, many had imagined that Sharma would get away. However, while the judgment has brought new hope to millions of ordinary citizens, it has also lent credence to public perceptions of the justice system.

Sharma, along with the other accused, was exonerated without a touch of blemish after a protracted trial by a lower court in 2006. After a section of the media protested against the unfairness of this decision, the Delhi High Court took up the case suo motu and found inconsistencies in the judicial process. The high court eventually overturned the ruling and convicted Sharma for first-degree murder. Now, the Supreme Court has agreed with the high court’s observation. But how did the judge in the trial court fail to detect any incriminating evidence in the case? A mere disparity of judicial observations in the various courts cannot acceptably explain this sordid episode.

Judicial corruption has come up in the recent years not only in cases relating to homicide, such as the Jessica Lal murder or the killing of Priyadarshini Mattoo, but also in instances of obstruction of due process, as in the suicide of Ruchika Girhotra. In the latter instance, the accused molester, S.P.S. Rathore, a police officer, got away using his influence. The latest judicial fiasco involves the nomination of the tainted chief justice of the Karnataka High Court, P.D. Dinakaran, to the apex court, later withdrawn by the Supreme Court collegium under pressure from members of the legal community.

Several retired chief justices have admitted that corruption exists at various levels of the judiciary. Even the law minister, M. Veerappa Moily, has accepted the inherent flaws in the judiciary and hinted at sweeping changes to be made through the judicial accountability bill. But boisterous claims by politicians are of little value until they are translated into action.

While upholding Sharma’s conviction, the Supreme Court criticized the media for the way they campaigned for justice in Jessica Lal’s case. While a person must be considered innocent until proven guilty and ‘media trials’ are best avoided, freedom of speech also remains a fundamental right under the Constitution. All court proceedings and legal submissions are considered ‘public records’. The media play a critical role by promoting public awareness of important issues. In fact, it is bounden duty of the media to report on legal cases that may have significant ramifications for social justice. Of course, such reports should be unbiased and based on facts that are part of court records. They should not unduly sway the thoughts of the person(s) who would ultimately decide the fate of an accused. In the United States of America, where members of a jury, randomly selected from ordinary citizens, decide most criminal cases, media trials may be of some concern. But the jury system has been long abolished in India, where only qualified legal experts appointed as judges preside over such cases. Why should a judge be swayed by media reports?

It is even more astonishing to note the apex court’s criticism of the media in the context of Jessica Lal’s murder. Justice was done to Lal only after the media played a proactive role in bringing out the truth. Now that the Supreme Court agrees that the trial court failed to deliver justice, the media’s pivotal role in the case stands established. The judiciary would serve the country better by encouraging the media to expose the flaws hidden in the legal system.

Yours faithfully,
Kunal Saha, Ohio, US

Sir — It is heartening that all doors have been closed for the murderer of Jessica Lal. Indian law is so porous that ingenious lawyers can help a criminal go free even after he has killed someone in front of many people. In this case, the murderer happens to be the son of a political leader, and many witnesses, fearing a backlash, abstained from giving correct evidence. It is essential that the judicial system is revised. Ordinary citizens cannot afford to wait for 11 years to get justice.

Yours faithfully,
Benu Kumar Bose, Calcutta

Sir — The decision of the apex court to uphold Manu Sharma’s life term is welcome. Even after using a lot of influence and with one main witness turning hostile, justice prevailed.

Yours faithfully,
R. Sekar, Visakhapatnam

Sir — Upholding the life sentence on Manu Sharma, the Supreme Court set a new benchmark in the justice system. Not only did it prove that the law is above all, but also showed that in a democracy, people are paramount, and no institution, however revered, can be spared. The verdict shows that the trial court’s acquittal of the accused was improper. No one knows if this error of judgment was bona fide. The apex court should order a probe into the proceedings of the trial court for the sake of the credibility of the judiciary. A mechanism to check judicial misdemeanour ought to come from within the judiciary itself.

Yours faithfully,
Md. Motleb Ali, Calcutta