Indian Penal Code still to find answer to the question

The perennial question is not less than a blot on the so called golden history of justice in India.. (an article by Parijat Tripathi)


Justice itself is a complete process. The process takes its time but when it takes so long, questions hover over the head of the deity of Justice. The first and foremost question comes into the existence here: Is delayed justice an injustice? We are talking about the newly emerged world power, India.

Is it true that justice received late is equal to non-receipt? Seemingly and practically correct. If justice is received after death, what does it mean? People actually are not afraid of justice because of the loopholes of the law. Evidence is bought in broad daylight. Witnesses are killed. The criminals of Nirbhaya are sentenced after 8 years. Even the video of the Udaipur murder case is still being investigated. Even if it is clearly visible in the video, the justice has its own procedure to be followed. The legal system is like this. It talks of equality but equality does not appear to be visible. The allegations say justice is often done with a vendetta being lope sided. If this is so, this can’t be defined as justice.

They allege: Is justice so blind that many times it is not possible to see the injustice happening in front of it? In India people claim, the blind lady of justice is all western thought whereas the West feels, justice has to close its eyes to be fair.

Practically the universally fair idea indicates justice has to see the whole account to be fair. In Indian culture, Yama is the god of justice and not only he sees every good and wrongdoing of people but he even keeps everyone’s account also. As far as the Sanathan Dharma’s way of justice goes, being blind is not a good idea being with wide open eyes is what is required. And hence nobody can ignore this cultural injustice insinuated by the supreme question asked here.

What can be the benefit of the item received after the passage of time? Nobody might have an answer quenching the thirst of the question. How many days does it take for a person to get justice in India? If justice is delayed, then whose fault is it? Why can’t they look at this? Why is the system so stale without any brighter change as per the accurate requirement of the time today?

Small cases which are related to common man like check bounce, divorce, dowry, maintenance, accident claim, property dispute -take five to ten years and then to settle big cases like murder, rape, dacoity etc. it usually take ten to 20 years or it may go even longer with no certainty of the time.  but if the matter is in the fast track court, it is highlighted in the media, then the date is available quickly and the decision can be made soon. At the same time it takes ten to twenty years to reach to the High Court and then the same duration of time is taken to reach to the Supreme Court.

Why can’t justice be delivered in time? Why can’t fast track court system be introduced as the regular legal system of India? Why is the government ignoring this injustice done to the helpless people of India looking for justice? Is this article will just be gone through and that’s it?

The place which needs to be free of corruption, does not seem so. The entire judicial system is responsible to clarify this common public allegation in which lawyers, police officials,  judges, witnesses are all said to be responsible factors. One of my clients appears to be distraught and disappointed stating that he is stuck in the courts for his divorce which was filed ten years ago. Now he is 55 and he is begging – Can I marry now while the case is in the court?

Let us be wiser technically, when they ask: Is there any definition of justice and injustice apart from law? Justice means truth only, justice means ‘pure evidence’, justice means accurate verdict. Thus, the best combination of truth with pure evidence coupled in the verdict becomes the Justice. But general tendency shows the Haves are mightier than the Have Nots in the court of law. As per the common perception, it is money talks, walks and wins. Realistically it is true, none is equal here, elephant and parrot can’t ever be considered equal.

Injustice also demands its definition for the one who are ignorant about it. Injustice is when a person is not seen through the eyes of truth, and that is why and that is when he gets inspired to behave more untruthfully. This is injustice. Now whatever he does to support his wrongdoing will be injustice, his every act to hide his goof up will be injustice, even if he loves his self on his own behalf while doing an unfair deed, it will also be injustice – this is the real definition of injustice. Thus, proceeding further in this direction, for sake of behaving devoid of truth, to live a life devoid of truth- is a life of injustice.

Being civilized denizen of a country you are supposed to obey the law of the land. Whatever you do which violates the law of the land will be an injustice. Henceforth, you cannot do injustice in the name of compassion, you cannot do injustice in the name of love, you cannot do injustice in the name of liberation, peace- then there every breath of yours will be a breath of injustice, injustice as untrue and better call it unnatural in a world of natural justice, no matter which country you reside in.

In the world of full of corruption, if you see so much destruction on the outside, it is because there is destruction inside the man too, today. If you are not inhabited from within, there will be destruction outside. The outside is visible, the inner-self is not visible. The inner can also be visible, look at someone’s life, look at someone’s eyes, look at the face- that is the mirror of the inner look. The only difference is that the outside is a little more gross and easily visible.

Let us encounter all the questions walking within the domain of justice. Another question we find here: What is justice if it is not a goal? It certainly is a goal on the part of the governance on the part of the legal system and on the part of the law of the land. This way, the aim for the society is to ensure a future journey to justice with peace. Perhaps man has created Justice for the sake of the society and injustice.

In the minimum words it can be said that the value which moves the society forward is justice. Nevertheless, the interpretation of justice or the determination of the nature of justice is in fact very difficult. The practicality cannot be explained easily to people. But that does not mean the demand of quick justice should be ignored. Respecting the ground reality, what the society accepts is justice.

Generally, there is no such strong value which is accepted by every section of the society other than the law of the land. The seeds of the law of the land is also deeply incorporated in the traditions and traditional mindset. That also just can’t be avoided. The law of the land has also to revere these values simultaneously.  Thus, to be honest, there can be no universally accepted, universal or all-time definition of justice as such. It is also amalgamation of revenge, rewards, equality and peace along with the law of the traditional values as balanced as possible.

Justice is also the basis on which a society takes all its components together to move forward and move towards the future. If a section of the society is neglected in the system, no matter how small it may be, then it cannot be called a system of justice. Certainly, there cannot be majority justice since justice walks on the grounds of equality for all. Here, let me tell you this balance is truly difficult to maintain. Some minority values may also be too sensitive to be touched.

They also say, this undemocratic truth may not be invalid at times. But in every situation, imposing a majority on the minority by cursing it, is grossly unjust. And here we meet a greater truth mulling over it that there is no such value which the whole society accepts equally and fully. In such a situation a hard and fast law of the land is the solution. Perhaps from time immemorial, justice according to law was accepted as justice.

But it has been seen many times that law originates from some powerful source and the aim of the society is to maintain that source of power. Then that power source may also utilize the law of the land for its own petty interests right or wrong.

On the other hand, the general belief has been that the only source of justice is logic. Logic is purely an ideological enlightenment.  Also, the sense of justice is purely a natural vibration of the senses. Conceptually none of this is justice in toto– they can only be means of reaching justice.

Today justice rests helplessly on the authorities of Justice department -be it a judge or a lawyer or police officials. Is the judge the only source of justice? Is the lawyer the only source to reach to the justice? Is ignorance about the law also hampers your journey to justice? If not a lawyer or a judge, is there no justice? Practically, we have held justice hostage to the lawyer’s ability to argue, our ability to pay fees, and judge Sahaban’s personal discretion, belief and mood too. We have made justice a fruit to be found in an endless blind alley. The one who gets tired, loses first.

The British had developed the judicial system of the present structure to keep powerful criminals loyal to the British Crown. Directly or indirectly, the ignorance of the victim and the influence of the state on the offender, dominated the legal process. This was the colonial system to scare the criminal by keeping the victim in the background, presenting it as justice.  This arrangement is not for giving justice to the victim, but to keep the criminal as a puppet of the state.  Isn’t the same legal structure is being carried on the land of the free India? If yes, then for sure, the future of the criminal seems to be forever in the hands of the Crown, directly or indirectly.

To make the criminal fearless under the protection of the state is also said to be being repeated today. Save whomever you want, hang whomever you want, they say. Put whatever you want in, take out whatever you want- that is what we hear. Justice has nothing to do with law, or expectation of justice with this system is next to impossible -this perception of the people is also baseless in fact. Extremism is no way helpful in the practical grounds of life, no matter what department it is. There can be no justice beyond justification.

They also say, the police encounters happening in the country only because of delayed justice in court. Without saying, police system says – How long will you tolerate goonda raj?

It is said that in most of the cases, the police presents the charge sheet but on time. Who is responsible? Legally wrong but what will happen to such a criminal like Vikas Dube. They will keep killing people and come out on bail. That is where, on the part of the police, encounter is the biggest weapon.

Again, the first question in another words: Will delayed justice count in the limits of justice? In delayed justice, a man is in more trouble than the crime. After the death of an earning member of a family in a road accident, now who will be roaming around from police stations to the courts and who will pay the lawyers to get justice and claim?

But if the date is given in the routine manner delay and the decision comes  in about five to six years, then the victim gets the same amount of money as he has spent in the lawyers and the court, so was this justice done?

Now a crime is committed against a poor, rape or death occurs, then leave the High Court and the Supreme Court, it  becomes difficult to fight even in the district court. Apparently, the public prosecutors and the government take interest in only those cases in which they have some political advantage, otherwise the poor and the common man do impatiently await justice, which gives them real hard time beyond their affordability. This is why people keep asking the same answerless question time and again:  Will the Indian judicial system ever be improved enough so that the victims get justice at the earliest?