JESSICA - JUSTICE WRIT AT LARGE

The verdict in the Jessica Lal case, though in the expected lines, has brought to light certain shortcomings in the judicial system. It has almost passed strictures on the Trial Court – how the lower court made a hasty approach to secure a particular end – of securing acquittal and available evidences were not depended upon and that it relied on evidences whose credence can be questioned. It also underscores the need for protecting evidences and witnesses. The High Court verdict called Shyan Munshi a ‘liar’. Shyan Munshi had either been bought out or was threatened or that he lacked scruples. A man in public life like Shyan Munshi should do some introspection, when he is called a ‘liar’ by one of the higher judiciary. Judges would not use such harsh terms, unless warranted. Times of India in its editorial wrote that the press and the public conducted a parallel trial. When public sensibilities were outraged, laid down procedures and niceties would not be the governing force.

What is heartening is the fact that even the politically powerful and influential cannot stand judicial scrutiny when they err. Ram Jethmalani is not invincible and as I wrote earlier, holes in hundreds can be picked up on his arguments. I am glad that Truth has triumphed over sophistry and semantic jugglery. Even the tallest would be dwarfed, if he champions a cause which is not impeccable.

The punishment, read out this morning is Life imprisonment for Manu Sharma. As it was not a premeditated murder, death sentence would be disproportionate to the crime. At the same time, it was not merely spontaneous, the action certainly had the arrogance of power behind it and hence a harsher punishment like Life Term was necessary.

When the matter goes to the Supreme Court, as the convicted is sure to go on appeal, I am sure, like millions of others, that justice shall prevail over Power (Political and financial) and legal acumen of those who would argue out the case.