Does every sinner have a future?
The angst behind the recent Supreme Court ruling that asked this question.
A recent judgement of the Supreme Court has raised many questions. The history of the case as understood from the 39-page judgement can be summarized as follows:
The full judgement can be read here.
The public reaction was caustic, to put it mildly. But lawyers cringed when they read the news report.
Why do lawyers pause before reacting?
Many lawyers cringe when they read news reports about judgements. Let me give you a few reasons:
Many newspaper reports selectively quote statements from judgements to make them sensational
Certain judgements are based on the interpretation of improperly verified facts about what actually happened, improper investigations, mistakes in evidence etc.
There is a lot of difference between what remarks are made in the court, what is written in the judgement, its legal meaning and the meaning perceived by the general public.
Sometimes judges are constrained by law, other times by procedure, and still other times by mistakes or admissions before the judge that are not recorded properly.
The judges do not have anyone to defend them on social media.
But what about this case?
Swati Goel Sharma is one of the diligent reporters when it comes to factual reporting of sensitive cases. However, here we can make one correction.
Indeed, the lower court and High Court had awarded the death penalty to this convict.
A legal clarification is needed here. In India, a “death sentence” is to be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases. The next worst sentence is “life imprisonment”. The term “life imprisonment” usually means 14 years of imprisonment. Judges can modify the term of imprisonment in this sentence depending upon the gravity of the offense.
The Supreme Court had in an earlier order stayed the death sentence till further hearing.
The present Supreme Court bench has reduced the sentence to 20 years. In reducing this sentence, the Supreme Court has considered psychiatric and psychological evaluation, reports from jail officials etc.
Whether the judges did right by this sinner or not we may never know. But judges did fail the victim and did send a wrong message to the society at large.
Understanding the backlash
There are various reasons we see the caustic backlash over this decision.
The state gets the monopoly power of violence to do justice. If the State does not deliver justice in the eyes of the society then society becomes violent.
Reformative justice aims to correct the offender and make him functioning part of society. This is applicable to thieves who may be victims of circumstance, poverty, accidental misconduct etc. If an adult cannot appreciate that 4 year old is not an object for sexual perversion, he cannot be reformed. People are rightfully angry as the victim was 4 years old - 4!!!
Misdirected liberalism: Judges often apply their “liberal lens” to those before them. The convicts are before them, victims are not. Time passes and judges no longer hear the cries of the helpless victims.
Consistency of justice: Judges are showing leniency to convicts attacking 4-year-olds while holding common people to strict procedural standards that result in decades of denial of justice.
Delays play into this issue: People are unable to reconcile judicial delays and allocation of judicial time to cases such as these. Was there any reason to rush to solve this case, particularly after the death penalty had been stayed. Can the Supreme Court not apply its mind, energy and liberal outlook to those long-pending questions of law?
Casual exercise of power: As is said in Spiderman, with great power comes great responsibility. When courts exercise their power in a causal way, it hurts social sentiments. Had the Supreme Court regretfully reduced the sentence to maintain consistency in the application of judicial principles, the backlash may not have been as harsh. It would have also acknowledged some respect to the victim, who is no longer with us.
All Judgements and no justice: The judgements are needlessly long, copy-pasting from unrelated sources, and unnecessarily philosophical with quotes ranging from Shakespeare to Mahabharata applied improperly. And yet, they do not answer the question of law or fact that is raised before them. Reading them does not explain the law of the land, the constraints that lead to the verdict or what could have been done better. It merely causes headaches.
The Takeaway
The general public must refrain from jumping to conclusions about any judgement without first reading it.
Reporters must separate facts, judicial analysis, judicial conclusions, decisions and separate all of that from reporters’ own narratives and opinions.
Judges should realise that judgements do not matter justice does. Today, judges are disconnected from on-the-ground realities. Their western, colonially slanted training does not always sit well with the dharmic conscience of this country.
Ultimately, injustice is the spark that ignites revolutions.