Saturday, October 2, 2010

LEGALLY SPEAKING!!!

Today Is octocer second the national holiday at India one can"t avoid thinking about the barrister at South Africa whose definition of legal profession cloud our minds in the aftermath of Temple versus Masjid verdict delivered day before yesterday!

Last month news in TOI that many Judges were caught redhanded while copying in their University Examinations did not entirely shock me.I am often skeptical whether men who deliver jurisprudence and make crucial decisions on peoples"lives are competent enough to do it.Especially in issues of complex varieties demanding expertise and advanced knowledge and high degree of social awareness on issues involving science technology environment history archaeology philosophy and ethics and morality.

They are invariably possessing archaic knowledge with a basic degree and after study of ageold laws land up in starting to study criminal law or civil disputes or service and labour cases or company law and constitutional law asper the opportunities they get.
These ordinary men give final answers for vexed questions that makes or mars quality of life of multitudes.
For general public ,however, the perception is that they are superhuman or demigods.

Their perception is not completely wrong. They are right expectations.Under balance of power concept they should be eminent men of undisputed integrity noblest purest and most righteous. They examine laws of the state and declare them null and void interpret them to give true definition of justice without fear or favour.They have to pledge their allegiance to human race not restricted to any man made distinctions.
If it comes in God"s name they do not hesitate to act in the interest of humanity.In his definition of PHILOSOPHER-KING Plato envisaged these qualities thousands of years back.

Recent pronouncements of Judges are eyeopeners and fail to meet any of the lofty expectations above explained.
They talk too much assumes too much but are silent spectators to the specific question whether the perpetrators of demolition have indulged in criminal act or not.This reflects a declining trend in values.
depicting the fact that modern morals are curious mixture. One is the desire to live harmoniously and at peace with rest of the religious groups. And the other is subservient to ancient supersitions semi divine characters in mythology preached and followed by the most backward or pastoral or agricultural tribes few thousand years back.
In the recent judgment cognisance of the offence commited in 1992 and examination of evidence the two duties expected out of the litigation have been swept under the carpet.
If they are not experts and they lack specialisation in any Branch of knowledge They cannot go ahead making their views binding on peoples" lives. this is my humble opinion.

6 comments:

  1. Hello Sir,

    I totally echo your views , but at the time, I differ with one point.
    Isn't the 1992 criminal case a different case from the 1949 Title Quo case. There is no doubt it was a criminal act and the perpetrators have to be brought to books. If a civil case took 61yrs, then I wonder how long a criminal case might take.
    And I also believe that we wouldn't have spent the 141st birthday of the Mahatma peacefully , if the verdict was a different one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Mr.Nithin

    I respect your views but I am dutybound to remind you the sole cause for which Mahatma lived and died which is ' Ends do not justify means"

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good should be rewarded and wicked punished is what poetic justice is all about; all conscientious artists know this and need to religiously abide to this unwritten norm. The gatekeepers of justice should wear that kind of ethico-moral crown - if at all they expect to be rewarded in heaven! Or is it that they are fully aware about the ploy of religion who engineered the concept of afterlife and the inescapable matrix of faith? Unfortunately, such spineless practitioners of justice live pompously by day and damned at night; devoid of a good night's sleep, for they have traded their souls for falsehood and guilt.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wonderful thoughts. I have asked myself the question whether the law and justice are the same thing. Sometimes what is morally wrong may not be legally wrong, because morality is based on values that can differ from person to person and from period to period.

    Law is intended to preserve a social order. It may stop persons doing what is socially unacceptable (if it has the will)but will not pass moral judgement.So is Law a means to an end or an end in itself. (for instance many countries have legalised prostitution and do not consider that to me a crime anymore)

    Law is man made and changes with time. Is the concept of justice the same? Are we taking about the same thing or two different things.Food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  6. My reply to Mr.Sivalingam

    This is wonderful theme Dr.Amartya sen deals in his Book "Idea Of Justice" with beautiful interpretation of Neethi And Niyaya from our ancient tradition of jurisprudence. I recommend you this Book.

    ReplyDelete