|
Whom are we
giving justice? Is it only for riches or is it for all?
Is the process of justice is a Royal battle between two giants (may be by
money or by
might)?
Is it a test of two intellectuals to prove any thing is right; by their
imaginative
knowledge?
Should we change our constitution to say that 'let hundred guilty not punish
but we will
punish somebody to save or establish our legal and enforcing system is
right'?
Should we change the statue not only binding the eyes but also hands and
legs?
Today, everybody is aware about the pathetic condition in the area of
getting justice.
Everybody knows that if they have to go to court they need money and justice
is
uncertain. In-spite of this people goes to court why? If I have no water to
drink I will
have to drink the water, which may be unhealthy.
Civilization, education pushes human being to be more objective feelings
values are
considered as the virtues of illiterate. (Of course experts talk more of
values and feelings
whenever is convenient.) Intelligent people advocate intellectual integrity.
Believe it that
in industries or any- where it is those intelligent people who are quite
dishonest talk or
shout on intellectual integrity. Rather than going by the spirit of
constitution, rules and
regulation, the intelligent people (advocates) started finding the loop
holes and exploiting
it for the sake of money or might or may be by way of their personal
influence.
Number of times we see the helplessness of the judges as they are suppose to
go by the
proceedings only.
Today, we see a judiciary system, which was trimmed from jury system (is it
to make
somebody supreme or let every thing be in water tight compartment)
Let us take some example,
Case 1.
a) Lower court gives a decision of convicting.
b) Higher court gives a decision acquitting.
If, the concerned person has no money to reach the higher court, do we feel
that we have punished who is not guilty?
What happens to the witness produced in the lower court? Can he be punished
for saying lie on oath? Somebody may say it is possible to punish, for which
you make fresh case!! Can we charge the concerned lawyer for his
inefficiency? What happens to the judge? Of COURSE, if one has no money how
could you reach court?
Case 2.
a) Case was dismissed in Gujarat court:
b) Human right to take up Supreme Court.
c) Supreme Court directs re hearing out side Gujrat!
One thing appears to be clear that judiciary is not free from external
power. Otherwise why the case has to go outside the state? Who is bigger?
Where is satyameva jayate? What is the meaning of tying the eye making
BLIND?
The statement changed three times!!! Now Supreme Court orders for enquiry
why the change in the statement. If we have a faith in judiciary system, why
to have Human Right commission?
Case 3.
a) Bofor
b) Ramajanm Bhumi
c) Jayalalita
d) Lalu Prasad Yadav The cases against above subject take severity depending
upon who is in ruling party. Is the judiciary is so weak that it has to play
to the tune of the legislator. Role of Advocates: Fees are exorbitant. They
are the key people to advise manipulation. Intelligence is used to advise
how the loophole can be exploited. How to manure the witness? What to say in
front of the court? Frustrate the opposition witness? Take case of a rape,
ask such question, which should frustrate or witness feel ashamed to talk.
Working of Court: — Number of cases are on the board hardly one or two gets
heard; new dates are given to the convenient to the advocate or to the
court. No concern for other people. Every day hundreds of people leave their
important works and waste their time in the court. There are cases where
doctor has to sacrifice the treatment and be in the court. Can we think of
contact time of the court working? At least 7.5 hrs proceedings is must for
the court. Question of studying and giving judgment can be only one day in a
week. Mind you almost all the executives in other place works for 10 - 12
hrs of the day. In short' Today Judiciary system is not able to deliver the
goods to common man'. Reasons are as follow, I) Money, mussels and
legislator power hinder the proceedings.
II) Rather than going by the spirit of the law, it is exploited by using its
loopholes.
III) Lawyers are exploiting the people by money, embarrassment and peoples'
innocence.
IV) The witnesses get free after telling blatant lie.
V) Low efficiency and bureaucratic working in the court.
What are we
to do?
a) First and foremost we should think of a workable solution, which can be
affordable to all class of people. We all are aware that we are a country
where not more than 10% of the people can afford to fight a legal battle in
the present court of law (considering supreme court is the last solution)
b) Solution, which we identify, should be independent of money, mussels and
politicians. It is only possible if we are educated and develop maturity
then only we can stand on the onslaught of mussel power and legislator
power.
If it is so, the immediate solution appears to be 'PANCH PARAMESHWAR'.
Advantages
i) The situation and persons are known to the Panchas.
ii) No temptation of money that is the reason we use the word Parameshwar.
The fear
of out casting because of corruption will prevail over Panchas.
iii) System will be simple even Uneducated person can plead or can become
Panch.
Disadvantages,
i) As there is no appealing it may not be full proof (in any case, where is
full proof system today).
ii) Quality of the judgments depends on the quality of the Panchas (it is so
today
also)
As one can see advantages are more it can be the right time to adopt the
system of 'Panch Parameshwar'
Please note that any system if everybody cannot reach it; dominated by money
power it has no right to exist.
If it is appealing to the masses, let us start discussing in houses, every
corner of the road, any gatherings so that it will be a mass movement.
Let us appeal to the Government, to introduce the system of 'Panch
Parameshwar' in each place.
Back |