news details |
|
|
| Law minister must hang his head in shame | | In autocracy judiciary was free; in democracy it is in chains | |
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Apr 9: Two months ago when the government approved the rules framed by the state High Court seeking disposal of habeas corpus petitions within 15 days; the families of prisoners, lawyers and human rights defenders welcomed the move saying it was a "a right step in the right direction at the right time".
Giving details, the law minister, Ali Muhammad Sagar said: "Yes, I have given the approval of rules and regulations for courts and Case Flow Management in the High Court. I approved the matter the day it came to my office. These will go a long way in providing speedy justice in different nature of cases."
The rules mention that a notice should be issued in respect of writ of habeas corpus by the court at the first listing and shall be returned within 48 hours in a case where the person is in the custody under the order of state or government of India.
Soon after the law minister Ali Muhammad Sager promised on the floor of the house that prisoners released by the High Court will not be re-arrested. The assurances of the law minister were put to test during the past one month. The new rules were not applied to Shabir Shah's petition. He was re-arrested after the High Court quashed his detention under Public Safety Act (PSA)
Notwithstanding undue delay in administration of justice, the people still have faith in the judiciary. Hundreds of cases are filed every day which indicates that the people expect the judiciary to dispense justice. But the government, it seems, has no faith in judiciary. More often than not, the authorities flout court orders.
There is no denying the fact that the state has been passing through very difficult times for the past two decades in particular. But then the state faced a more organized political movement from 1931 to 1947 when the state was governed by autocratic Hari Singh. He always held the judiciary in high esteem. During his regime not a single extra-judicial arrest has been reported. Surprisingly no fake encounter, no enforced disappearance and no custodial killing took place during his regime. Here an attempt is not being made to glorify Hari Singh un-necessarily. But a student of history finds it very difficult to ignore his tremendous respect for judiciary.
The democratic rulers have many lessons to learn from history if only they find time. Do the present day rulers know how Hari Singh tendered an apology to a traffic magistrate for his queen's interference in the administration of justice? And do they know how Sher-e-Kashmir directed a High Court judge to oblige his Halqa president from Budgam during emergency rule?
The rules framed by the High Court and approved by the government cannot achieve the objective unless the state government and its agencies repose trust in judiciary. The court acts impartially. It hears the detainee and it hears the government. Then it decides the case on the basis of merits. If the court feels that the grounds of detention furnished by the police are not enough to justify detention, the order is quashed. And if it is quashed, the detainee must be released. But this does not happen. The court order is not honoured for upholding security of state. The courts are equally concerned about security of the state but the intelligence sleuths hold a contrary view.
And last but not the least the ministers must fulfil their promises especially those made on the floor of the legislative assembly. Ali Muhammad Sagar must hang his head in shame or admit his helplessness in public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
