A unanimous cry across the country is for the need in judicial reforms. There would perhaps be not many among us common men who have not been affected in someway during our life-span on account of the lack of judicial reproach. This is more so due to the very nature of the judicial facilities being unavailable for the prohibitive nature of its approach, the mediators involved and the faith in it as a mechanism of being able to deliver justice (within a life span of course – pun intended). The time taken for justice is much better talked of as less as possible, we all know of the working hours and days our courts have (which should perhaps be amongst the lowest in the world). Like any other governmental institution, judiciary too with its archaic style of functioning and red tape(ism) is no less corrupt; ask if there’s been anyone who could skip greasing the palm of the chamber attendant even to peek into the courtroom.
It is surprising that the law-keepers themselves are unwilling to do much about the scenario. A case in point is the Election Commission, though it being a part of the executive machinery, the seniors there even at the cost of being labeled publicity mongers, made sure they were heard and got the necessary reforms carried out to ensure people faith in the functioning of the commission. As citizens, many of us are pretty certain of the fairness with which they conduct probably one of the largest democratic exercises in the world. I am bewildered as to why the judiciary has kept away from insisting similarly on these reforms. We don’t hear many of our senior judges advocating the need for these reforms and creating any public awareness to push the case. The freedom to have the corrupt officials caught red handed by vigilance commissions and the lokayukta’s (most of whom are from the judiciary themselves) have also been dealt with rather shoddily, with a blame game on by both the sides, the judiciary says the government doesn’t give them the permission to prosecute and the government blaming the commission. Many a union law ministers have bragged publicly about these reforms with very little achieved in terms of reality.
We celebrated with much fanfare; the media and the political class made sure that they told us how we got the first Chief Justice from a stratum of the society which the political class for their convenience considers backward / reserved and such. I am not really concerned which societal sector our Chief Justice comes from as long as I get justice on time and have my belief that the system is managed well under him. We also cried with joy (the media did more so) when the high courts and apex court gave their opinion regarding cases of public importance (the gay rights; the statues and so on) but am not sure how much of those opinion were actually considered and acted on by the government though, and who remains accountable. Now we have a scenario where a judge of questionable character (though he is yet to be indicted – but his amassed wealth as reported in the media seems to tell a different story altogether) and is considered for the Apex Court, a news that is indeed scary.
Our public institutions have to be sacred, without a speck of dirt on it, beyond the scope of doubt, and if not any other institution the judiciary necessarily has to be one. As long as this continues to elude, we are no different from our neighbor in ensuring that people get away scot-free for whatever evil they’d do.
