POLTICIANS AND LAW
Thesis Statement: In this paper, the research worker efforts to analyze the grounds that why the politicians should non represent a particular category for which fast-track tribunals should be set up. : In this paper, the research worker efforts to analyze the grounds that why the politicians should non represent a particular category for which fast-track tribunals should be set up.
The recent suggestion by the Prime Minister of India to set up fast track tribunals so as to stop the pending instances against the Members of Parliament confronting condemnable charges raises a serious inquiry that whether the politicians constitute a particular category necessitating particular attending from the bench at the cost of the pending instances of other citizens, which thereby might be offensive of article 14 of the Constitution. The fact that merely the condemnable instances against Members of Parliament should be expedited, while disregarding big figure of pending instances of under-trials who are non a portion of this category implies that there could be some sort of favoritism between elected representatives of the citizens and citizens themselves.
The Fast Track Courts were established to hasten the disposal of long pending instances in the Sessions Courts and instances of under-trial captives. [ 1 ] Harmonizing to the latest available information received from State Governments/High Courts, at least 32.34 lakh instances have been disposed off by fast path tribunals, out of the 38.90 hundred thousand transferred to these tribunals go forthing 6.56 lakh instances pending for disposal. [ 2 ]
As per available informations, India has merely one-fifth of the needed figure of Judgess as compared to developed democracies of universe. [ 3 ] The work overload on an single justice thereby is five times the figure of instances he or she ought to hold. Now adding particular classs without any sensible categorization would non merely increase burden of work but besides be offensive of article 14 of the Constitution.
The CJI has said that the work force is limited in subsidiary tribunals along with unequal substructure. The fast-tracking of one class of instances would non merely intend that other classs would endure but besides that there will be an unequal intervention with regard to instances of other accused confronting condemnable charges. [ 4 ] Fast tracking the instances of a few categorieslike adult females, victims of sexual offenses and senior citizens is justified since these citizens belong to the vulnerable subdivisions of the society. The procedure of their test which might affect physical and unwritten scrutiny becomes a cause of great hurting and embarrassment for these categories. It might be argued here that the Members of Parliament in inquiry might belong to the above mentioned classs but so the fast trailing of their instances on this footing will be justified, but categorizing all the M.P.s as a category for whom fast path tribunals must be set-up is implicative of inequality. This measure could take to a hold in all other instances affecting vulnerable subdivisions such as adult females and senior citizens. Even the fast-tracking merely the condemnable instances where adult females or senior citizens are involved should be accompanied by a general rushing up of all instances, but the relevant point here is the fact that they have a valid ground for such expedition. Fast-tracking one type of instance for particular category of citizens without any sensible categorization would merely take away resources of the system and therefore adversely affect instances of other citizens.
Another statement in support of such fast-track tribunals is that apart from the legal demands, if the instances pending against people ‘s representatives are processed rapidly, those guiltless representatives could go on working for the people while those found guilty would be disqualified, but the chief point here is the pendency of condemnable instances against the ‘people’ themselves who are ordinary citizens and non Members of Parliament or Members of Legislative Assemblies. If of one class of people is given penchant over another without any sensible justification, it would amount to the violation of right to equality. There are some other subdivisions of the population who are besides supplying valuable services to the society and against whom the determinations in condemnable instances are pending. These people might include administrative officials and other authorities functionaries whose suspension on evidences of felon charges which may or may non be true, acts as a large hindrance in work and finally damaging for the populace at big. On the same evidences, there should be no differentiation between their instances and those of M.P.s and M.L.A.s, and the same can be said for assorted other citizens working in high authorities offices. If the aim of the move is to supply benefit to the populace at big, so steps to speed-up the full judicial system, which includes bettering substructure of the tribunals and increased cooperation from the subdivisions of administrative governments ( e.g. , constabulary ) , should be taken into consideration.
A good and rapid condemnable justness system is the demand of the hr so as to hasten justness in instance of people confronting false charges which may destroy their life during the period of pendency and might move as a good disincentive to offense if the charges against them are true. However, making the same for a peculiar category without any merely alibi would merely decelerate down the procedure.
Another statement by those who are in the favor of such unreasonable categorization claim that with proceedings pending for old ages, such elected members continue to bask the rank of the legislative organic structures despite being charged with flagitious offenses. The statement here ignores the fact that there should be an effectual mechanism that bars the entry of such lawgivers into the Parliament or Legislative Assemblies itself, alternatively of increasing the load of the bench.
The Chief Justice of India himself said that due to the fundamental law of fast path tribunals for the “Nirbhaya” gang-rape and for the Italian marines’ instance, other instances suffered. [ 5 ] Both the above mentioned instances had justifications: the former involved a adult females victim of offense really flagitious in nature and the latter involved international dealingss. However, despite justifications these instances finally resulted in the decelerating down of other instances. Now to conceive of fast-track tribunals for M.P.s and M.L.A.s merely on the land that they are lawgivers will non assist the condemnable justness system in any manner.
Fast path tribunals do non needfully intend expeditious decision of cases.As per the yesteryear records, the bulk of instances which were specifically aimed to be fast-tracked did non demo any better consequences. However, even if they have to be constituted, it has to be in such a mode that doesn’t violate article 14 and if there is any categorization, it should be on footing of sensible evidences such as the condemnable instances affecting senior citizens and adult females.
Around 1.80 crore condemnable instances were pending in test tribunals despite the disposal rate transcending the rate of the filing of new instances by the terminal of the last twelvemonth. [ 6 ] If fast-tracking is sought as the lone method to catalyze the condemnable justness system, so it must be taken up from the test phase, without unreasonable categorization, which would work out bulk of the job since a really big figure of instances attain conclusiveness at these phases themselves and thereby would be good for all the citizens. Harmonizing to Article 14 of the Constitution, an arbitrary action or favoritism in the exercising of discretional power is illegal. [ 7 ]
Hence in the present instance, there is unreasonable categorization, which is implicative of flightiness. The regulation of jurisprudence is denied when there is flightiness.
- M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 483 ( 4Thursdayedn. , 1994 ) .
- William Gallo,Effectiveness of India’s Fast Track Courts Questioned, Voice of America, ( January 4, 2013 ) ,available athypertext transfer protocol: //www.voanews.com/content/effectiveness_questioned_of_indias_fast_track_courts_seeking_justice_for_rape_victims/1578020.html ( Last visited on September 10, 2014 ) .
- Mahapatra,Why merely MPs?Why non fast path all condemnable tests, Supreme Court asks, The Times of India, ( August 2, 2014 ) ,available athypertext transfer protocol: //timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Why-only-MPs-Why-not-fast-track-all-criminal-trials-Supreme-Court-asks/articleshow/39447325.c MS ( Last visited on September 8, 2014 ) .
- Don’t Fast-Track merely MP’s Cases, says SC, The Telegraph, ( August 1, 2014 ) ,available athypertext transfer protocol: //www.telegraphindia.com/1140802/jsp/nation/story_18678564.jsp # .VBM5T_mSwZJ ( Last visited on August 30, 2014 ) .
- Department of Justice,Fast path tribunals, ( 2014 ) ,available athypertext transfer protocol: //doj.gov.in/ ? q=node/108 ( Last visited on September 10, 2014 ) .
National Law School of India UniversityPage 1