The old saying is that justice delayed is justice denied. Show a single case in which justice was done speedily and the spirit of the saying was broken. Justice in our country and the State is a long and procrastinated affair. It is primarily because of the great complexity of the laws concerned and the heavy workload which the Judges have to dispose of. Some observers are disposed to say that things have to come to this pass because the judiciary is asked to perform the function of executive.
Our administrative machinery has been made a slave of political mechanisms. No area is left without political interference. Therefore political interference has reduced the freedom of administrative machinery to work independently and without being influenced by people with political interest. When political pressure is brought about to influence dispensing authority to do undeserved favour to one party it is but natural that the other party will try to expose and defame the authority for doing injustice to it. Two cases of corruption were pending against two Government functionaries for 18 long years. The charges brought against them were that they had overpaid for the furniture and thus caused loss of lakhs to the State exchequer. The FIR was lodged against them and the State Vigilance was pursuing the case in the special court of the judge for anti-corruption cases. The Judge has said in his verdict that the State Vigilance could not produce strong evidence that would prove the allegations of misappropriation funds against the convicted persons. He has further said that oral witness cannot be substantiated so as to prove the allegations.
It is a bizarre verdict in sense against the State Vigilance. Why did the SV file a case in the court if it had not sufficient evidence to prove it? The SV is not a novice and those who man it are adepts in bringing charges against the defaulters on ground realities. That the SV has handled the case so casually as not to provide even the convincing evidence is a clear aspersion on the functioning and honesty of the SV. It is a very sensitive matter and the simple inference which anybody can draw from the story is that the SV has been soft paddling for some ulterior motive. What that ulterior motive could be is anybody’s guess. The SV is painted in dark colour and it has to understand that it must be able to win the trust of the Government and people. Eighteen years is too long a time for which period the cases were hanging and the SV never cared to file an application to the court that it is unable to produce convincing evidence and as such the case should be withdrawn. That would have been the face saving for the SV. It has not done anything of the sort and as such must bear the wrath of civil society.
The SV should at least learn one lesson from this episode. It should do some soul searching and if there are more cases pending in the court of law for which it is unable to produce the convincing evidence, it should either work for bringing in convincing evidence or put up a petition in the court seeking withdrawal of such cases. That would be a face saving.
Follow our WhatsApp channel