RELEVANCE OF MOB VIOLENCE IN DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mob_fury_Murder_accused_thrashed_in_Bihar_/articleshow/2807542.cms http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6992711.stm

Ravi Kumar, receiving treatment after being arrested for stabbing another man to death in Bihar’s Hajipur District on 24 Feb 2008, was dragged from his bed by the crowd with a rope tied to his hands and being kicked until he stopped moving. The local police was present on the scene but chose to ignore such blatant violation of law, the very purpose of their being.

A similar case occurred in the State on 19 Feb 2008, when a mob lynched an alleged rapist in a village in Saran district. In 2007, a man accused of stealing in Bihar was lynched and dragged behind a motorcycle by a crowd with active help of policemen. There is an unending list of incidents where the people took law into their own hands to deliver what they perceived as instant justice.

The attack was the latest, but not the last, in a series on suspected criminals in the country. India's legal system is mired in bureaucracy and corruption, and it can take years for a case to be heard and a trial to be concluded. In most cases, it is virtually impossible to get the police to register a ‘First Information Report’ (FIR). The progress of a case or otherwise depends mostly upon two of the most damaging elements of the Indian legal system – ‘Jan Pehchan’ (influence and connections) and ‘Ghoose’ (graft). There are honest and efficient individuals in the system no doubt, but they are few and far between and not enough to make a difference for the better. The frequent cases of mob fury, vigilantism and violence are a sign of growing frustration with judicial delays and reflect absence of public confidence in the police force. When justice becomes distant and elusive, alternative platforms surface to deliver so-called justice through muscle power and / or mob violence.

With criminals making politics a safe bastion in the country, the line dividing law makers and law breakers has been obliterated. Politicians with criminal backgrounds/connections oppose any attempt at reform and set the state law and order machinery in order. Unfortunately, even established political parties like the Congress and Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) have not refrained from depending on criminals for making their way to power. How else can the presence of the likes of Laloo Prasad Yadav, Mayawati and a host of others in Parliament and state assemblies be explained? The Vohra Committee report paints a grim picture of criminal elements in politics and has made various suggestions, as has the National Committee on the Review of the Working of the Constitution. Based on this information, the Election Commission of India has filed a number of proposals for the consideration of the Government.

The judiciary has also made directives concerning the writ petitions filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms [ADR] and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties [PUCL] in May 2002. The central government failed to take any legislative initiatives to bring greater transparency to elections in response. However, the Election Commission of India mandated disclosure of criminal records of electoral candidates--including convictions, charges pending and cases initiated, financial records and assets and liabilities of a candidate, their spouse and other close relatives.

To circumvent this order, the government drafted an ordinance with provisions expressly in violation of the Supreme Court’s directives and Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India. On 16 August 2002, the government sent the ordinance for the president’s approval. However, concerned citizens and activists got together under the banner of the National Campaign for Electoral Reforms and pressured the President to refer the matter under Article 143 of the constitution to the Supreme Court. The President returned the ordinance to the Indian parliament for reconsideration on 23 August 2002. But the cabinet reiterated its position against disclosure of details of the candidates for election and simply returned the ordinance to the President, who had no other option by law but to promulgate it. For his efforts, the then President, Mr APJ Abdul Kalam was denied a second term in office by the Congress, even when all opinion polls showed he was the people’s choice.

The Lok Satta, PUCL and ADR challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance in the Supreme Court, which on 13 March 2003 struck down the amendment brought in by the ordinance by holding that Section 33B of the Representation of People’s Act of India is unconstitutional. It also held that the parliament cannot abridge the right of the citizens to know about the candidates and for all practical purposes declared that the notification issued by the Election Commission of India must be made law.

The political parties of India have a moral and legal responsibility to weed persons with criminal records or pending allegations out of their ranks. Their minimum duty is to provide citizens with a genuine choice for representatives, not persons seeking to use state resources to defend themselves and their cronies. The dismal choice of candidates offered by the political parties leaves little hope for the future of India’s claim to be the world’s largest democracy.