And Justice For All

I noticed an article on the front page of a national daily, about how Ram Jethmalani’s family was opposed to him taking on Manu Sharma’s brief in the Jessica Lall case. It quoted some family members voicing their objections, and also mentioned how RJ was unmoved by their views and was determined to act according to his personal convictions.

I confess that I did feel a sense of shock, outrage and dismay. Shock and outrage about how this seemed to go against certain human feelings, and dismay about what this could mean with regard to the outcome. RJ is after all one of the country’s pre-eminent criminal lawyers. After these early reactions, the whole issue drifted to the back-burner for some ‘mulling over’.

The case being as high-profile as it’s become, there’s been no dearth of stimulus, almost a daily dose in fact. So it was a small news-byte today about how RJ’s plea to transfer the case to another court had been rejected that brought my thoughts off the back-burner. I went trawling around the online sources, the usual suspects of blogs et al and found a fair bit of vociferousness and strong views stated fairly strongly. Which is only to be expected perhaps; and yet, I was curious about why I wasn’t feeling as worked up and anxious as a lot of people seemed to be.

On the face of things, the reaction of shock and outrage came from the sense of unfairness, the part of all of us that looks at fair-play as opposed to justice. The latter requires proof, the former comes from within each of us. Both have their strengths, and both also have terrible weaknesses – for instance, what do you feel about the Middle Eastern tradition of ‘an eye for an eye’ as a mechanism of justice? The path of fair-play has a way of skirting dangerously close to human-mob-mass-opinion based conclusions. And yet it cannot be totally dispensed with can it? Because then you would have the type of travesty that marked the trial court judgment in the Priyadarshini Mattoo case: the judge said words to the effect that though he knew that the accused was guilty of the crime, he was acquitting him due to faulty evidence. While the same evidence was used to come to the opposite judgment by the Delhi HC. The blindness of justice is something that almost all of us would have some experience of and views on. So what?

Well, yes. In my view, Manu Sharma is entitled to retain whomsoever he may wish to defend him. In which case, isn’t it reasonable to expect him to appoint the best he could? RJ is entitled to take on any brief that he chooses to, and for whatever reasons that he considers appropriate. What implications could this have on the outcome of the case, the judgment?

In my mind, there is reason for concern on this score. This case has abundantly demonstrated how the weaknesses in our justice system and process can be abused and exploited through money and power. Witnesses being bought, evidence being destroyed, the whole case reads like a primer on how you can use and abuse power in India. Considering that justice relies on evidence, proof, witnesses, statements and the like, all of which seem to have been bent and twisted during the course of the last several years, the concern about how a sharp lawyer like RJ can influence interpretations. Which a lesser lawyer may not have had the arrogance or confidence or sheer weight and stature to exploit. To me, the whole shenanigan about trying to shift the case to another judge smells of precisely this kind of ‘high-risk’ and thus arrogant approach. Invariably, such moves are not baseless and therefore ridiculous, there’s always the kernel of basis on which they perch – and yet, there’s a statement being made, an approach being established, and I interpret this as an arrogant demonstration of the keenness of my mind, and how far I’m willing to go. Had the case indeed been shifted, wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that the new judge would’ve been influenced by the decision?

Some of the concern also stems from the power and connections that RJ would wield. I’d like to believe that he would not do anything that is subverting justice, like using his connections to exert undue influence. But the point is that in this case, that’s not even required – by now, all that could be done to the evidence, the witnesses and due-process has already been done. All that is required is to demonstrate how the same information could be interpreted in a manner that makes it inconclusive – the ‘I know you’re guilty but I can’t prove it,’ defense. And RJ has more than demonstrated his ability to do this in the past.

Then the question of how this decision could be used by the Sharma’s to further tamper with the evidence/witnesses/process; after all if RJ has taken on this brief, then perhaps Manu Sharma is not guilty? Perhaps he’s being framed? Perhaps he ought to be given the benefit of the doubt? How will I stand up to a grilling by RJ, what if I get dragged in deeper? For you see, each of the witnesses is possibly guilty of something, by commission or by omission. Someone had the blood cleaned up, yet another denied knowing Hindi, and so on. It would be so easy to prey on these weaknesses?

And yet, I’m not getting disappointed or losing any hope over this development. For all that Ram Jethmalani may rant about this becoming a ‘trial by media’, he should not forget that its ordinary people and the media who have kept alive this case and the injustice that has been done so far. While I’m completely opposed to ‘justice by voting’, which is the inherent weakness of the media glare, I take hope from the fact that every little detail of the case will now be visible. Every person involved will have to act under the glare of floodlights – no possibility of shadows here, and that will have an important role to play when it comes to the muddied evidence and testimonies.

On a practical note, if so many of us are so concerned about the impact that Ram Jethmalani’s stature could have on the case, why do we not contribute and set up a panel of equally eminent legal luminaries to work with the prosecution? Starting with RJ’s son and daughter for instance? I believe this worked remarkably in the case of Prof. Geelani, the accused in the Parliament attack case.

When we submit to a process of justice, let us then abide by what it entails, no matter how weak or flawed it is; our judicial system and the entire criminal justice process is flawed, archaic and wide open to abuse. This has been begging change for many decades now, and I’m optimistic enough to believe that the RTI Act is going to play a big role in building pressure on these aspects. But once the game has begun, you cannot complain about the rules – that has to be done separately and independently. So we must be prepared for any outcome to this particular case, and to draw strength from the fact that the collective voice did manage to blast through the blatant corruption that had swaddled the case so far.

Let us not lose sight of all that has been gained, and of the future implications of these. Let us not lose hope in justice, and slide into the morass or morality – for those could be treacherous. Let it never come to pass that some zealous vigilante puts out a contract on Manu Sharma, and become a patriot in the eyes of the masses – like so many individuals have over the past and even recently.

Some interesting online reading:
Jessica Lall in Wikipedia (crisp and informative)
Sakshi Juneja’s Blog (includes a number of comments that make interesting reading too; Ms Juneja should consider using a good spell-check utility though!)
The Times Of India (features a cluster of articles on the topic)
Barkha Dutt in The Hindustan Times (were you desperate for a caption Ms. Dutt?)