Respect The Rule Of Law
Over a month ago, four new traffic signals appeared on the route I take my children to school every morning. The traffic lights have transformed the hitherto ‘free for all” into a ‘frequent violation’ zone.
Some citizens feel ‘more equal’ than others, granting themselves the divine right to drive past the red signal at their pleasure. Such citizens include BPO cabbies, auto rickshaws, motor cyclists, SUV’s BMTC and State Police buses as well as number plates with High Court of Karnataka and Govt. of Karnataka emblazoned. This scene probably replicates itself elsewhere in the country.
Citizens in a hurry terrorise fellow citizens, with supreme disregard for their right to cross a road in safety. From amongst such citizens can be counted the 60% plus equally in a hurry to deny Ajmal Ali Kasab the constitutional right to a legal defence. Unfortunately, within this percentage, the Bombay Metropolitan Magistrates’ Courts Bar Association enjoys bigoted cohabitation with Shiv Sainik lumpen fuelling the tyranny of the majority.
Their ignorance of the rule of law begins with the rules of the road but does not end there.
No lawyer can refuse to defend an accused on the ground that the person is a terrorist as this would amount to misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961. Refusal would render the lawyer liable for action under the Bar Council of India rules.
Meanwhile, the self-same Shiv Sena that couldn’t summon even a growl when Ajmal Kasab was decimating Mumbaikars, now bares its fangs at lawyers offering to defend Kasab in compliance with the rule of law. It is frightening when a motley pride of tiger cubs decides whether we are patriotic or anti-national.
History repeats itself in the irony of injustice. Twenty odd years ago Ram Jethmalani was despised as “anti-national” when he defended the alleged killers of Indira Gandhi. In Madhya Pradesh, Noor Muhammed, a district court lawyer, was assaulted by suspected Bajrang Dal activists before TV cameras for defending alleged terrorists. Most recently, Kamini Jaiswal braved derision to defend suspects in the Red Fort and Parliament attacks.
If Dara Singh in the Graham Staines case, Lt Col Purohit, Sadhvi Pragya in the Malegaon blasts and Rajiv Gandhi’s assassin Nalini, could all be provided legal aid, why not Ajmal Kasab? Nazi war criminals enjoyed the right to defence during the Nuremberg trials. Even the accused in the 9/11 attacks and July 7, 2007, London bombings enjoyed legal aid.
If people think that Ajmal Kasab is not entitled to a defence, their opinion runs contrary to the Constitution of India and counter to the express rules framed by the Bar Council of India.
However horrifying an alleged crime might be, India’s liberal constitutional democracy unequivocally allows the accused the right of a fair trial. This right to self-defence, it is universally acknowledged, is considered to be the very pivot of our democracy.
“Populations usually don't know the Constitution, the legal rules and the foundation of the judicial system of a country," said Ram Jethmalani in a recent TV programme. “The public needs to be educated on the fact that a defence of Ajmal Kasab means the defence of the rules of India”
Such emotions are damaging to the tenet of India's rule of law and the country's reputation of being committed to jurisprudence. Such dialogue provides an opportunity for the international community to cast the aspersion that Indians have no belief in their own Constitution.
More than 200 years ago a similar situation arose in the United States after the Boston Massacre with a public enraged by an act of brutality by their British occupiers. Because of the virulent anti-British sentiment in Boston, no lawyers in the city would agree to defend the soldiers, believing it would be the end of their legal careers. But John Adams, an outspoken critic of the British occupation, recognized the importance of a fair trial for the accused and agreed to represent them risking infamy and even death. In his diary Adam’s describes the experience as “one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.”
In keeping with John Adams’ tradition, US civilian lawyers volunteered to join the state-appointed military counsel defending the 9/11 suspects. US Navy Reserves Cmdr. Suzanne Lachelier, defence lawyer for Ramzi bin al Shibh, alleged driver and bodyguard of Osama bin Laden, said the 9/11 case presented “the ultimate challenge for a criminal defence attorney when a defendant is facing so much hatred from the general public and political backlash, to say the least”.
Within the ranks of American leading law schools, law firms and legal centres, it would be hard to find a cause more popular than the detainees of Guantanamo Bay. Every lawyer wants his own detainee or detainee group. The result is that dozens of the world's most dangerous men now have their own legal Dream Teams ensuring that the rule of law is upheld in letter and spirit.
Presently, Ajmal Kasab is another ‘pedestrian’ attempting to cross the roads of our legal system. While he denied 58 people the fundamental right to live he is assured legal aid by the same traffic light of Article 21 that guarantees all the right to life even when crossing a road.
While Kasab might be considered guilty based on his alleged confession, a defence lawyer must necessarily raise the question whether the alleged terrorist deserves the gallows or a life term.
The mathematician-turned-lawyer who has offered to defend Kasab offers two clear reasons for his decision to bring Kasab to justice; “in order to serve all of India, and to ensure that all humans receive a fair trial.”
“What people don’t realise is that it could happen to them tomorrow.” forewarns a leading constitutional lawyer.
The last word unequivocally belongs to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who in his recent address to the International Conference of Jurists on Terrorism, Rule of Law And Human Rights, in New Delhi stressed its supremacy saying “The Rule of Law is a continual process. Every day, every moment, in every place, a free people expect to see the Rule of Law prevail through the transparent and proper functioning of democratic institutions. There is no better insurance against the forces of extremism, intolerance and terrorism than the efficient and fair functioning of the institutions of democratic governance”
Some citizens feel ‘more equal’ than others, granting themselves the divine right to drive past the red signal at their pleasure. Such citizens include BPO cabbies, auto rickshaws, motor cyclists, SUV’s BMTC and State Police buses as well as number plates with High Court of Karnataka and Govt. of Karnataka emblazoned. This scene probably replicates itself elsewhere in the country.
Citizens in a hurry terrorise fellow citizens, with supreme disregard for their right to cross a road in safety. From amongst such citizens can be counted the 60% plus equally in a hurry to deny Ajmal Ali Kasab the constitutional right to a legal defence. Unfortunately, within this percentage, the Bombay Metropolitan Magistrates’ Courts Bar Association enjoys bigoted cohabitation with Shiv Sainik lumpen fuelling the tyranny of the majority.
Their ignorance of the rule of law begins with the rules of the road but does not end there.
No lawyer can refuse to defend an accused on the ground that the person is a terrorist as this would amount to misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961. Refusal would render the lawyer liable for action under the Bar Council of India rules.
Meanwhile, the self-same Shiv Sena that couldn’t summon even a growl when Ajmal Kasab was decimating Mumbaikars, now bares its fangs at lawyers offering to defend Kasab in compliance with the rule of law. It is frightening when a motley pride of tiger cubs decides whether we are patriotic or anti-national.
History repeats itself in the irony of injustice. Twenty odd years ago Ram Jethmalani was despised as “anti-national” when he defended the alleged killers of Indira Gandhi. In Madhya Pradesh, Noor Muhammed, a district court lawyer, was assaulted by suspected Bajrang Dal activists before TV cameras for defending alleged terrorists. Most recently, Kamini Jaiswal braved derision to defend suspects in the Red Fort and Parliament attacks.
If Dara Singh in the Graham Staines case, Lt Col Purohit, Sadhvi Pragya in the Malegaon blasts and Rajiv Gandhi’s assassin Nalini, could all be provided legal aid, why not Ajmal Kasab? Nazi war criminals enjoyed the right to defence during the Nuremberg trials. Even the accused in the 9/11 attacks and July 7, 2007, London bombings enjoyed legal aid.
If people think that Ajmal Kasab is not entitled to a defence, their opinion runs contrary to the Constitution of India and counter to the express rules framed by the Bar Council of India.
However horrifying an alleged crime might be, India’s liberal constitutional democracy unequivocally allows the accused the right of a fair trial. This right to self-defence, it is universally acknowledged, is considered to be the very pivot of our democracy.
“Populations usually don't know the Constitution, the legal rules and the foundation of the judicial system of a country," said Ram Jethmalani in a recent TV programme. “The public needs to be educated on the fact that a defence of Ajmal Kasab means the defence of the rules of India”
Such emotions are damaging to the tenet of India's rule of law and the country's reputation of being committed to jurisprudence. Such dialogue provides an opportunity for the international community to cast the aspersion that Indians have no belief in their own Constitution.
More than 200 years ago a similar situation arose in the United States after the Boston Massacre with a public enraged by an act of brutality by their British occupiers. Because of the virulent anti-British sentiment in Boston, no lawyers in the city would agree to defend the soldiers, believing it would be the end of their legal careers. But John Adams, an outspoken critic of the British occupation, recognized the importance of a fair trial for the accused and agreed to represent them risking infamy and even death. In his diary Adam’s describes the experience as “one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.”
In keeping with John Adams’ tradition, US civilian lawyers volunteered to join the state-appointed military counsel defending the 9/11 suspects. US Navy Reserves Cmdr. Suzanne Lachelier, defence lawyer for Ramzi bin al Shibh, alleged driver and bodyguard of Osama bin Laden, said the 9/11 case presented “the ultimate challenge for a criminal defence attorney when a defendant is facing so much hatred from the general public and political backlash, to say the least”.
Within the ranks of American leading law schools, law firms and legal centres, it would be hard to find a cause more popular than the detainees of Guantanamo Bay. Every lawyer wants his own detainee or detainee group. The result is that dozens of the world's most dangerous men now have their own legal Dream Teams ensuring that the rule of law is upheld in letter and spirit.
Presently, Ajmal Kasab is another ‘pedestrian’ attempting to cross the roads of our legal system. While he denied 58 people the fundamental right to live he is assured legal aid by the same traffic light of Article 21 that guarantees all the right to life even when crossing a road.
While Kasab might be considered guilty based on his alleged confession, a defence lawyer must necessarily raise the question whether the alleged terrorist deserves the gallows or a life term.
The mathematician-turned-lawyer who has offered to defend Kasab offers two clear reasons for his decision to bring Kasab to justice; “in order to serve all of India, and to ensure that all humans receive a fair trial.”
“What people don’t realise is that it could happen to them tomorrow.” forewarns a leading constitutional lawyer.
The last word unequivocally belongs to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who in his recent address to the International Conference of Jurists on Terrorism, Rule of Law And Human Rights, in New Delhi stressed its supremacy saying “The Rule of Law is a continual process. Every day, every moment, in every place, a free people expect to see the Rule of Law prevail through the transparent and proper functioning of democratic institutions. There is no better insurance against the forces of extremism, intolerance and terrorism than the efficient and fair functioning of the institutions of democratic governance”
Comments
Excellent. Ordinary citizens like you and me need to reiterate our faith and conviction in the Indian constitution - publicly, like you have done. Thats the only way some of the more misinformed will progress beyond medieval ideas of justice.
Rustam
Bangalore
Though a Delhi lawyer, M.S Khan has offered to take the case I doubt how it will proceed.
However unethical or morally unjust it is to defend someone the whole world has seen committing a crime. Law is a tool which can be used to prove anything. Yes believe me. Anything.
*sigh*