Zahira Sheikh has been convicted for contempt of Supreme Court and is in jail. Satnam Bai is being prosecuted for giving false evidence on oath. Bharti Yadav has been declared as a proclaimed offender and may be soon made an accused. What is common in all the three cases?
They are victims. Zahira Sheik lost most of her near ones in Best Bakery incident. Satnam Bai’s husband was killed in 1984 riots. Bharti Yadav was going to marry a man who was murdered.
Legal system refuses to acknowledge and incorporate the feedback effect on the victims. Instead of incorporating the realities of the victim-survivors and the pulls and pressures they go through, the legal system adheres to their strict rules of evidence and procedures. In these cases, the issues of varying versions given at different times come up at the trial. The legal system refuses to appreciate the pulls and pressures of the victims that lead to these varying versions. For instance, the pressure on Bharati Yadav by her don-politician father and brother has to be factored in. Further the court makes it even more difficult for the victims by not allowing facilities like video conferencing for presenting the evidence, when Bharati Yadav seems to be pressurized for not coming in India. On the other hand, the legal system pronounces the victim as ‘proclaimed offender’. The pressure on the victim - worry about the child’s future, ties with the perpetrators of the crime, fear of the powerful people in the society, distrust of the objectivity of the police – in changing the versions are just ignored. The same is true in other socially-relevant cases like dowries, rape or domestic violence.
In cases of riots, where the crimes could be committed by high and powerful ones, legal system refuses to factor in the reality where the prosecution could be half-hearted in presenting the complete evidence.
Should the legal system incorporate this ‘feedback effect’ and help ensure justice? Should the legal system help the survivor-victim in teasing apart the strands of the case instead of putting them in the docks? Should legal system draft new rules of evidence and legal procedures to ensure that all the evidence is brought on the table? Surprisingly, very few legal luminaries are even concerned about these aspects of justice. Rakesh Shukla, a Supreme court advocate, seems to be an exception.
Because, when legal system does not incorporate these feedback effects, it unknowingly subverts justice, which it is supposed to ‘offer’ in the first place.
They are victims. Zahira Sheik lost most of her near ones in Best Bakery incident. Satnam Bai’s husband was killed in 1984 riots. Bharti Yadav was going to marry a man who was murdered.
Legal system refuses to acknowledge and incorporate the feedback effect on the victims. Instead of incorporating the realities of the victim-survivors and the pulls and pressures they go through, the legal system adheres to their strict rules of evidence and procedures. In these cases, the issues of varying versions given at different times come up at the trial. The legal system refuses to appreciate the pulls and pressures of the victims that lead to these varying versions. For instance, the pressure on Bharati Yadav by her don-politician father and brother has to be factored in. Further the court makes it even more difficult for the victims by not allowing facilities like video conferencing for presenting the evidence, when Bharati Yadav seems to be pressurized for not coming in India. On the other hand, the legal system pronounces the victim as ‘proclaimed offender’. The pressure on the victim - worry about the child’s future, ties with the perpetrators of the crime, fear of the powerful people in the society, distrust of the objectivity of the police – in changing the versions are just ignored. The same is true in other socially-relevant cases like dowries, rape or domestic violence.
In cases of riots, where the crimes could be committed by high and powerful ones, legal system refuses to factor in the reality where the prosecution could be half-hearted in presenting the complete evidence.
Should the legal system incorporate this ‘feedback effect’ and help ensure justice? Should the legal system help the survivor-victim in teasing apart the strands of the case instead of putting them in the docks? Should legal system draft new rules of evidence and legal procedures to ensure that all the evidence is brought on the table? Surprisingly, very few legal luminaries are even concerned about these aspects of justice. Rakesh Shukla, a Supreme court advocate, seems to be an exception.
Because, when legal system does not incorporate these feedback effects, it unknowingly subverts justice, which it is supposed to ‘offer’ in the first place.
