Justice delayed
It is not only painful to see that the judiciary has taken 35 years to deliver justice in the case of the killing of Raja Man Singh and his two associates, but also shocking to read of the pittance that the Court has directed as compensation to the three victims’ families and to those injured in the dastardly attack (“Justice, slow but sure”, July 23). The amount should have been much higher, especially given the pain and uncertainty the victims’ families and the injured have undergone.
Judicial reforms are the need of the hour. The government should ensure that all the courts are adequately staffed, so that the huge number of cases can be cleared expeditiously. The government and the judiciary should also consider doing away with the summer vacation, so that more time is available for clearing cases.
In the instant case, this is not the end. The convicted policemen can file an appeal, so one can foresee this dragging on for a few more years.
V.V. Koushik,
Chennai
Evaluating the judiciary
It is a matter of anguish that the Supreme Court has issued suo motu contempt proceedings against Prashant Bhushan for allegedly undermining the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court and has sought the assistance of the Attorney General K.K. Venugopal in the proceedings (“SC issues notice to lawyer Prashant Bhushan over tweets”, July 23). It is true that the Supreme Court as an institution has to be defended when it acts within constitutional limits. However, an evaluation as to whether it has acted within such limits or preserved constitutional principles is a matter of opinion and does not amount to contempt. Mr. Bhushan is a great activist and a bold defender of people’s rights. Far from undermining the judiciary, he is one who strongly believes in the strengthening of the institution through healthy criticism. In Indu Bhan’s book about India’s top seven lawyers, of whom Mr. Bhushan is one, Mr. Venugopal ironically said, “We need more lawyers like Prashant.” If leaders of the Bar and the press do not critically evaluate the judiciary, democracy and the rule of law would be in peril. This is precisely what the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court did in early 2018 when they held a press conference about the ongoings of the Court. They did not undermine the Court but were only anxious about its reputation. When asked about his judgments being criticised, Justice Krishna Iyer said, “There is not enough criticism.” Such statesmanship is missing today.
N.G.R. Prasad, D. Nagasaila and K.K. Ram Siddhartha
Advocates, Madras High Court
The Supreme Court has come down in the estimation of many. Instead of facing up to facts, it is busy issuing notices to those who are taking pains to point out the decline of the institution tasked with upholding the Constitution.
The perception now is that the Court sometimes does not show the red light to the powers-that-be when they try to implement political agendas in contravention of the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The Court must assert its independence and make it
clear that it is not amenable to be co-opted; it must be aware that its fallibilities will have serious adverse effects on the country; and it must be a bulwark against totalitarianism and tyranny.
G. David Milton,
Maruthancode
Tradition of debate
This culture of silence is in fact foreign to our tradition (“Puncturing a culture of silence”, July 23). India has a rich and ancient tradition of dissent and debate. People in the past did not shy away from examining reality from diverse angles, but in modern India this is becoming more difficult.
Preetha Salil,
Mumbai
