JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN INDIA

The verdict of the Supreme Court reducing the punishment awarded to Govindachami, the accused in the Soumya murder case raises some pertinent questions regarding the functioning of our judicial system.

I always used to wonder how such difference verdicts can be delivered by different courts. As far as I understand the appellate courts only consider the evidences already seen by the lower courts and the arguments made before it while deciding on the appeal. If that be the case, how is it that the appellate court comes to a different conclusion? It can only mean that either the judge at the lower court or the appellate has not seen the case in the entirety. When the appellate court reverses the order of the lower court, should not accountability be  fixed on the lower court judge for passing a wrong order?

In the instant case the trial court judge was convinced that based on the evidences presented and arguments made, it was proved beyond doubt that the accused had committed the crime and hence the maximum punishment was awarded to him. The High court while considering the appeal had concurred with the opinion of the trial court and the sentence was confirmed. How come that the Division Bench in the Supreme court arrived at a different judgement based on the same evidence and arguments? Who is at fault here? Whose accountability should be fixed? Or is it that the judges are not accountable to anybody and they can interpret the law according to their whims and fancies?

 It is high time this aspect has been looked into by the Apex court, National Law Commission etc.If this is ensured we can reduce the time taken by each case in coming to a final conclusion. Because of the differing judgements by different courts, the appeals become an almost  endless procedure, causing heavy burden on the courts.

RELIGIOUS PRACTICES IN SECULAR COUNTRY

The statements made by two Kerala Ministers in the recent past had invited adverse criticism from Sangh Parivar outfits. Politically, the adverse criticism is understandable. However, I fail to understand why these statements should be viewed as aggression on Hindu Religion at all.

The first statement was made by Mr G Sudhakaran who said that in all government functions the prayer and lighting the traditional lamps should be avoided. While I do not subscribe to the view of removing the lamp, (as lighting the lamp cannot be attributed to any particular religion and it also symbolises bringing light to one’s life), I do not find anything wrong about the prayer part. As of now all functions begin with a prayer and in almost all the cases the prayer happen to be invocation of Hindu God/goddess. (Vinayaka or Saraswathi, largely). Is it correct to do this in a so called secular country when the government is arranging the function? To avoid such controversies, government can issue a directive saying that the functions could start with a silent prayer where all those present can stand in silence for a minute making their own prayers to their own gods. This way the government can avoid the criticism of following a particular religious practice. There is no need to mix religion or politics in such a move, I feel.

The second statement, which has led to a more severe criticism, is made by Mr Kadakampally Surendran when he said that the temples in the state be freed from the RSS sakhas. Here also I do not find anything wrong in the said statement even though it can be attributed to his anti RSS stand. But how can BJP and RSS claim right to the temples and conduct the weapon training etc in the temple precincts. I remember when the sakhas were introduced in the State in the seventies, there used to be the physical exercise conducted by the swayamsevaks in a ground, nearby temple. These physical exercises were meant to keep the swayamsevaks physically fit. These trainings slowly gave way to training in using the Dandas, and it goes to the credit of the RSS that they were the first to challenge the violent stand taken by the Marxist party cadres in many labour disputes in the State. (So in a way we can blame Marxist party for the growth of RSS in the State, I feel). It is reported that the training in using dandas (presumably for the self defense) have now given way to training in using various types of weapons and the training has slowly moved into the temple grounds and inside the temples, which is not a welcome change.If such a practice is continued to be allowed, it may eventually lead to a situation we faced in Golden Temple and hence the minister has rightly stated that it should be stopped forthwith. The temple precincts should be allowed to be used for the religious purposes only and once the poojas are over the temple should be out of bounds for everybody. I do not know why BJP should take a defiant stand against this suggestion, unless they have something to hide.

In connection with the above two, we should consider some other developments also. It is reported that one civil police officer has approached the court to permit him to grow beard as advocated by his religion, which has been rejected by the State Police Chief citing the service rules. I wonder why anybody should be allowed to display the religious symbols in defiance to the rules governing the service he has joined. Or for that matter why the religious symbols like the black veil (Burkha) and the skull cap be worn by anybody in public to declare the religion he belongs to. The religion is something to be practiced in the privacy of one's home and not to be done in public places. This is also equally applicable in cases of the processions taken out by temples, churches and mosques during festival seasons, often creating traffic blocks etc. and the blaring out of so called devotional songs through loudspeakers thereby disturbing others peace.  Even though I belong to Hindu religion, I find the blaring of devotional songs from the nearby temple in the early morning and evening as a disturbance to my peaceful life only and it does not instill any pious feeling in me. It is high time such practices are stopped. The right of a person to practice any religion should not be infringing upon the right of another person who does not subscribe to the views.

Similarly, the Chief Minister Mr Pinarayi Vijayan has asked the government employees not to conduct the Onam celebrations during office hours. While his concern for the wastage of duty time on this can be understood, as rightly pointed out by many people it is not understood why he has not expressed the same concern with those involved in organisational activities during office time. The people who make arrangements for such celebrations and those who do the organisational works should be asked to do such activities outside their working hours, if they are so keen to do the same.

However, instead of taking administrative decisions in all the above, it will be better if the Chief Minister holds an all party meeting to discuss these issues and arrive at a consensus on the issues after listening to the views of all. If no consensus is evolved, it will be left to the Cabinet to take an appropriate decision, leaving no chance for others to interpret it as a partisan decision.

I hope better sense will prevail over all the so called leaders in the larger interests of the State.