“BEFORE THE LAW stands a doorkeeper on guard. To this doorkeeper there comes a man from the country and prays for admittance to the Law. But the doorkeeper says that he cannot grant admittance at the moment.
Yesterday, a superstar was set free by a court. A judgement which took thirteen years to come was suspended in under 48 hours. Now, the wheels of the judiciary will turn firmly and slowly, as they always have. Judgement will come, but when it is of little consequence.
The intricate system of checks and balances, which upholds the law and order, may well be independent of public opinion, political whims and individual fancy, but it is also unaccountable and hopelessly slow. In the meanwhile, a wronged homeless family, which has lost its sole breadwinner, languishes on the streets with hope that is slowly but surely being extinguished.
Below is a timeline which represents the farcical nature of judicial proceedings against Salman Khan. To put things in perspective, Salman Khan released over five films while the court was trying to finalize the charges against him. He went on to release blockbuster after blockbuster, while the police officer who turned witness against him died a painful, ignominious death.
While these pronouncements break down our belief in systems meant to protect us, we must try to retain perspective and view this as a case about a hit-and-run involving a man called Salman Khan, rather than a superstar by that name.
Given the nature of the incident and historical precedents, we must first probe how countries around the world fare in similar cases. "Benchmarking" is a crucial step in identifying the strengths and shortcomings of any system, including the judiciary.
By evaluating the most common charges levied under similar circumstances in countries across the world - this is usually termed "Vehicular Manslaughter", "Motor Homicide", "Dangerous driving occasioning death" or (as in India) "Culpable homicide not amounting to murder" - we can qualitatively understand the nature of sentencing:
In terms of sentencing, it would seem that our books of law do not differ widely from worldwide standards. There are countries which are far more stringent with their laws, imposing sentences up to life imprisonment (e.g. Canada) in some circumstances, but there are a few with far less severe punishments for similar crimes.
It must however be noted that the swift justice is usually more important than an increase in possible sentencing. It does not make sense to give a life-term to a man in his seventies for a crime he committed in his forties. The arduous process of procuring justice in the country makes the judiciary something like a comedy-act.
This is a comparison of the performances of various justice systems across the world in similar hit-and-run cases involving celebrities like actors, businessmen, NBA and NHL sports-stars, and relatives of the rich and powerful. While the term itself is varied, justice is served piping-hot in a way which makes slightly more sense than the great Indian comedy show.
Craig MacTavish and Charles Smith, who were NHL and NBA starts respectively, got their sentences in less than eight months. Matthew Brodderdick , the voice of adult Simba in Lion King, was dished out (a travesty of) justice in just about one month. In comparison, Sanjeev Nanda of the Delhi hit-and-run case was sentenced to two years imprisonment in 2008, ten years after his crime. He killed six persons including three police officers.
The rate at which vehicular death cases are registered (this doesn't cover cases which are not reported) amplifies these extreme shortcomings of the judiciary and the bodies involved in investigation. India contributes an alarming 19% of the world's total automotive fatalities, second only to China.
While the deaths are in proportion with the overall population of the countries, a more relevant statistic is the "Automotive Fatalities per 1,00,000 motor vehicles" - in which India has more than twice the world's average.
The weaknesses of the judiciary are showcased by the accelerated accident rate (of which a percentage is taken to court). Cases come in, pile up and collect dust upon the shelf, while few actually leave the court. Simultaneously, the kinks in our law-and-order system result in enhanced accident rates, thereby exacerbating the situation. In the absence of deterrent punishment, the value of safe-driving is often compromised. And there are more accidents.
Simple concepts of lane-discipline and obeying traffic lights are forgotten, overspeeding is hardly seen as an offence, and most people drive after taking one for the road. Only yesterday, I watched a group of drunk bachelors getting into the car discussing Salman Khan's case, oblivious to the irony of the situation.
"Thappad se darr nahin lagta hai sa'ab. Car se lagta hai."
Quick and effective justice will be possible only when the judiciary, like most modern institutions, has metrics to measure efficiency, and specific and measurable targets to show constant improvement. In the absence of these, or with the poor enforcement of these, the men in black cloaks will remain an ineffective pool of mediocrity, and Salman Khan will make ten more blockbusters before his sentencing is enforced.
““Everyone strives to reach the Law,” says the man, “so how does it happen that for all these many years no one but myself has ever begged for admittance?”
The doorkeeper recognizes that the man has reached his end, and to let his failing senses catch the words, roars in his ear: “No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment