Corruption In The Indian Judicial System – OpEd
By Prakash Kona
I was told by a serious-minded scholar, although without supporting evidence, that the two most corrupt institutions in most countries are the army and the judiciary. I always thought that the politicians, bureaucrats and the police would be leading the race when it came to corruption. Interestingly, no!
No doubt that corruption in any form is unacceptable to say the least. But the corruption of a doctor and a judge, I find, particularly unforgivable. Popular films in India are filled with characters in the roles of noble doctors and upright judges, who happen to be honest to the point where they are willing to send their own family members to prison in the process of upholding the law. I am happy to state on record that I never came across any of these people in my experience. Only heard that such people existed. No idea where. And about representations of police in Indian films the lesser said the better. Politicians, unfortunately, are often shown in a rather poor light, while, in reality, we do actually meet men and women dedicated to public welfare. The former Minister for Health and Woman and Child Development of Kerala, Ms. K K Shailaja and the current minister, Ms. Veena George – both of them fall in the category of politicians with public concerns.
The corruption of the army, especially at higher levels, doesn’t surprise me. Again, to repeat myself, it is the corruption of the judges I find particularly abominable for the same reasons that I have nothing but contempt for doctors who refuse to treat patients simply because they cannot afford to pay them a fee. Like countless others, I admire the doctors and the medical system of Cuba for the same reason that I am repelled by the medical and legal system in the US. The role that money plays in healthcare and in the law courts of the US – they make a mockery of both humanity and civilization.
The New Testament seems to have a particular dislike for lawyers and judges and I often wondered why Christ had such a low opinion of them. In fact, he goes on to say, “Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and it was your fathers who killed them.” As a universal dictum, Christ notes, “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” I am certain that though this warning is meant for everyone, it is particularly meant for those who occupy positions of power. Christ also says, “Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.” In other words, it’s preferable that you make peace with your bitter enemy rather than enter a court of law.
It would be an understatement to say that corruption is rampant in the Indian judiciary and public officials in the courts of law are as prone to corruption as any clerk or attender in a government office. I’m relying not just on newspaper reports but also on my own observations. The independence and impartiality of the person sitting in the position of a judge is more often than not a myth. Anyone who has been afforded the opportunity to spend time in a court of law knows perfectly well what I am talking about. But, there are exceptions. There are exceptions everywhere. There must have been exceptions among the Mongolians who, under Genghis Khan, destroyed the Khwarezmian Empire, the exceptions who felt that it is wrong to kill and destroy. There are always exceptions in the evilest of situations. Nobody is good or bad by virtue of their background or the profession they practice. Swift puts it wonderfully in one of his letters to Alexander Pope, when he says:
“I have ever hated all nations, professions, and communities, and all my love is toward individuals: for instance, I hate the tribe of lawyers, but I love Counsellor Such-a-one, and Judge Such-a-one: so with physicians—I will not speak of my own trade—soldiers, English, Scotch, French, and the rest. But principally I hate and detest that animal called man, although I heartily love John, Peter, Thomas, and so forth. This is the system upon which I have governed myself many years, but do not tell, and so I shall go on till I have done with them.”
I think people can be loved and respected at an individual level and never as a group. In any group of human beings, irrespective of nation, community or profession, it is but natural to encounter the worst of them at any point in time. This is why Shakespeare goes as far as to reject any claim for justice that does not take the demands of mercy into account. With surpassing sweetness Portia in the guise of a lawyer will remind Shylock, “Though justice be thy plea, consider this,/ That, in the course of justice, none of us/ Should see salvation.” Since, as human beings, each of us is guilty of one wrong or more for which we deserve to be punished, she expects that Shylock will show mercy. In the real world of course it is questions related to justice, rather than mercy, that will capture our attention.
But, justice for whom, is the question? Is it justice for the wolf or for the lamb? As Jean de La Fontaine’s poem, “The Wolf and the Lamb” puts it, “The reason of those best able to have their way is always the best.” In the end the wolf devours the lamb because its reasons do not have to be substantiated through an independent inquiry. The wolf is the judge, jury and executioner. It is the logic of brute power which is money, influence and ideology at play. When money, influence and ideology dominate the courts of law it is the justice of the wolf that prevails as opposed to justice for the lamb. That’s how it is in countries where there are authoritarian populist regimes which prevent the courts from being neutral and when the legal system is complicit with power as it usually happens in such regimes.
If the wolf is a metaphor for those with power, the lamb needless to say stands for the vast majority of the powerless. But the law is specific in its choice of people who approach it. It is not as if everyone looking for justice is going to a court of law. It is also not as if the person seeking justice through the law is ever forgotten. The entire legal system is built on keeping records of individuals who approach the law. This is when you realize the grotesque irony of the situation. On one hand, the legal system couldn’t care less for you as a human being. But there is always a record of you and you are eternally trapped in that system, no matter what. That is the summary of Kafka’s parable, “Before the Law.”
When the man from the country comes to the law he is forbidden from entering the gate. The gatekeeper who stops him tells him, “I am powerful. And I am only the most lowly gatekeeper. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other. I can’t endure even one glimpse of the third.” The nameless man waits forever until he is slowly and painfully dying. Finally, he asks the gatekeeper, “Everyone strives after the law,” says the man, “so how is that in these many years no one except me has requested entry?” The gatekeeper sees that the man is already dying and, in order to reach his diminishing sense of hearing, he shouts at him, “Here no one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you. I’m going now to close it.” The point is that there was indeed an entrance assigned to the man. There are countless such entrances for countless persons who are denied access to justice, but with the illusion of a legal system that they could approach in a crisis, each gate kept separate from the other.
The man came seeking for justice, waiting at the gates of law, like nameless individuals from everywhere. For him the “law” is justice. He believes in the law and dies believing in it. But, no matter what, he can never have access to justice. The parable is true of countries like India where ordinary citizens wait for justice for years and years and often die in the process. Explaining court procedures, a slightly cynical lawyer told me, “The operation was successful, but the patient died.” It is not like the common persons are forgotten by the system of law. They get their summons and listings as and when required. But for the man to cross the symbolic “gatekeeper” – the system of law – and get access to an impartial hearing from an impartial judge – an individual with a conscience that is able to distinguish right from wrong, almost never!
References:
India’s judiciary and the slackening cog of trust
Corruption In India Pervades All Levels
Courts, Corruption And Judicial System
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3993-courts-corruption-and-judicial-system.html
A Sneak Peek Into The Corrupted Indian Judiciary
‘Eight Of The Last Sixteen Chief Justices Of India Were Definitely Corrupt’
