Date: December 17th 2008

From: milap_choraria@yahoo.com
To: rti-times@lists.riseup.net
Subject: [rti-times] Criminal Legal System in India
Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 6:45 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criminal Legal System in India

When I read News/ Article: CBI looks up to its masters in every politically sensitive case, in times of India dated 16th December, 2008, written by Special Legal Correspondent in Supreme Court of Times of India Mr. Dhananjay Mahapatra, by which he draw a correct picture of Indian Legal System, according to me which is fully responsible for the growth of various types of crimes in India. About 9 years ago I have also written a similar article in Hindi, which was published in several Hindi Newspapers, mentioning therein that in case Bill Clinton could have been Indian and Mr. P. V. Narsimha Rao could have been as an American then what would have been result of respective Cases, against them. Indian Evidence Act is not as strong as it can ensure justice in criminal cases. Even after more than 60 years of independence, transfers of the Police Officers are taking place without any regulations resulting thereby transfers of the Police Officers are routine part of the political acti
vity, to effect the investigations. Similarly misuse of the CBI is another important part of our political system. These are the main reasons to withholding the Police Reforms in India. Times is ripping out to constitute a People’s “Constituent Assembly” consisting people form each and every part of India and each segment of the society to frame out a concrete suggestion to overhaul the entire system to save and strengthen the Indian Democracy keeping away all types of wrong doers.

Aforesaid article of Mr. Dhananjay Mahapatra, is quoted below:

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich must be ruing his luck for being born in the US. Had he been in politics in India, he probably could have got away or pulled a string or two to avoid FBI from arresting him on the charge of trying to sell President-elect Barak Obama's vacant Senate seat.

But he could still qualify as a student of Indian politics for refusing to resign despite the humiliation of being arrested and virtually ostracised in US political circles.

Similar allegations were made recently by Margaret Alva that tickets to contest MP and MLA elections were being sold. It got "I told you so" grins from everyone. But no one, not even the Opposition, stood up to seek an inquiry. For, they must be aware of the spread of the malaise and felt that any surgical treatment could affect their own limbs.

In this "I scratch your back and you scratch mine" politics in India, the investigating agency, especially the image-conscious CBI, gets treated like a pawn and is made to do flip-flops every now and then. We all know how CBI would have loved to step into FBI's shoes and bring to book Blagojevich clones in India.

This predicament of CBI was gauged by the Supreme Court in its famous Vineet Narain judgment in Jain hawala case. It said, "Inertia was the common rule whenever the alleged offender was a powerful person. The Constitution and working of the investigating agencies revealed the lacuna of its inability to perform whenever powerful persons were involved."

It talked about a simple remedy: "Everyone against whom there is reasonable suspicion of committing a crime has to be treated equally and similarly under the law and probity in public life is of great significance."

Will this ever happen in India? Take, for example, the CBI cases against BSP supremo Mayawati and SP chief Mulayam Singh Yadav. Their parties always had a sizeable number of MPs. Big parties, whenever short of majority, have naturally vied for their support. And the CBI has always been used as a weapon with both Mayawati and Mulayam -- to either wreck vengeance for their refusal to play ball or to oblige them for their support.

Mayawati had her time immediately after being elected to power. Her good equations with the Centre paid rich dividends. She was let off in the Taj Heritage Corridor scam by the UP governor, who refused to grant sanction to CBI for her prosecution.

But she knew that nothing is permanent in politics. Her refusal to side with the UPA government saw CBI filing an affidavit in the SC seeking her prosecution in a disproportionate assets case.

When she was in the Centre's good books, Mulayam was not. The Centre egged on the CBI to pursue his alleged disproportionate assets in the SC, which had refused to do so against Lalu Prasad and Rabri Devi on the ground that courts should not be political battlefields.

After the SC directed a CBI probe, the agency on the basis of evidence collected through a preliminary inquiry sought the top court's permission to register a case against him and his kin. Mulayam also knew that nothing is permanent. He bided his time for a change in equation with the UPA government. After saving the UPA in the trust vote, it was time to demand his pound of flesh. The CBI moved another application seeking to withdraw its earlier brave stand in the DA case against him.

If Mayawati and Mulayam had their share of joy and sorrow at the hands of CBI, there are many who reaped the benefits of being close to power. Bofors case, Babri Masjid demolition case, DA case against Lalu and Rabri, Shibu Soren, Ajit Jogi... the list is endless.

Again, the solution to this could be found in Vineet Narain judgment. The SC had said, "A scheme giving the needed insulation from extraneous influences, even of the controlling executive, is imperative." Till then, the CBI cannot step into the FBI's shoes and arrest corrupt politicians like Blagojevich.