1100am/Sunday 24March 2013
As can be anticipated, the recent Indian Supreme Court verdict on the review petitions in the 1993 Mumbai terrorism case has evoked a mixed response, and has clearly revealed the double-standards that the so-called intellectual middle-class Indian practices (I refer to the calls for a sympathetic review of the Bollywood actor convicted in this case).
But there is one aspect of the 20-year legal episode that calls us all to introspect and work upon innovatively – why should there be a system of blanket “appeals-processes”, and “review-petitions” that convicts and their lawyers with affordable means abuse and waste the time of the valuable higher courts and executive administration?
Could we not innovate to ensure that judgements, in the first instance, are right and, all judgements will be reviewed through an automatic peer process in 3 months time – the peers could be a body of retired judges, who would serve the nation better rather than becoming chairmen of government-appointed committees ; and if the review process reveals a case for retrial or review by an upper court, then such an advice will be provided to the convict and his/her lawyer, who will then move the higher court. Also shouldn’t the Supreme Court involve itself only in cases of a gross-misrepresentation of constitutional rights, jurisdictions, and privileges for citizens and organisations rather than involving itself in lower matters such as review of quantum of punishment?
What’s your take on this? Signing off for now....
No comments:
Post a Comment