Justice loses character if it becomes revenge

“Justice loses its character”.

Primarily, we need to answer the question; “What is the character of justice, and how revenge scuttles its character?”

The word "justice" finds a place in the very preamble of our Constitution: the holy book on the anvil of which every law is tested. The preamble of the Constitution Of India talks about Justice: Social, Economic and Political. In a society with a lot of diversity, advancement in science and technology and growing population conflicts are bound to arise because of various reasons. Generally, it is when the rights of one stimulus are exercised over other’s right or one stops to acknowledge one's duty to respect others' rights as well. Whenever such a situation arises, we need institutions to play their role and set the rule of law in motion and dispense justice.

Salmond, on this, opined that though a man wants others to be 'righteous and just' towards him, he himself being selfish by nature may not be reciprocal in responding justly. This opinion also indicates the nature of man to sometimes not acknowledge the rights of others and thus run roughshod over their rights which somehow is not acceptable to the idea of Justice. And because justice has to be dispensed, we need institutions that can put every person’s rights on the same pedestal.

In the recent case of the encounter of four accused by the police in the Hyderabad gang rape case, it had been alleged that this was done in response to the attack by the four accused which is yet to be confirmed and adjudged. But, referring this act of killing of the four accused as "instant justice" would not be fair and perhaps not right at all. In criminal law, there is a presumption of innocence until the accused is proven guilty through a fair trial in a court of law, even though this presumption is not only for the sake of putting a heavy burden of proof on the state to prove the guilt of the accused but also for the reason that an innocent should not suffer for what he has not done. As has been said by William Blackstone that “it is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffers”.

We need institutions to protect the rights of all and given the fact that police as an agency of the state if start to ascribe such acts as instant justice is shameful and the act of showering flowers over them by the people somehow reflects the diminishing faith of the general public from the criminal justice system in the judiciary.

In such times, we as the general public need to remind ourselves of the true character of justice and how revenge of any sort with personal vendetta may tarnish its nature.

Justice Madan B Lokur writes that justice can never be instant, and he further states the report of Justice V K Agarwal on the Sarkeguda massacre in June 2012 in Chhattisgarh as a shocking example of innocents being slaughtered on an extra=judicial assessment of guilt for a crime not even committed.

It is a very commonsensical that recording of evidence and any kind of inquiry into the case takes time and that perhaps emphatically asserts that justice can never be instant and if it is instant, it is not justice and what is even more unjust is to ascribe any act by any agency of state as instant justice by the general public or any other body. It has also been said that justice hurried is justice buried and justice delayed is justice denied. The state has to strike a balance between both and it should neither delay nor make it instant. For this to happen people need to be emotionally intelligent because of the simple reason that it is the will of the people that influence the laws in a particular country, and the state should not be the body to enforce the laws on the individuals who are not ready to respect it.

Will and sentiments of the general public though have very little to do with the ideal or theoretic form of justice but the state has to go beyond that form of justice and make it practical in nature.

According to Mahatma Gandhi, a true justice lies in fighting against injustice, tyranny, inequality and racialism. in order to establish a socio-economic order based on truth, equality, and fraternity. This is the Gandhian theory of justice which like other theories is more focused on the ideal character of justice.

Amartya sen in his book “Idea of justice” contemplates the practical approach towards the dispensation of justice. He in his book tries to explain the need to have a theory of justice and how the reasons, that too practical reasons and moral sentiments as contemplated by Adam Smith in theory of moral sentiments play a role (if) in reducing injustice and advancing justice. He in his book also talks about not only acknowledging and identifying the demand for perfect justice but to realize it in its practical way by keeping in mind the need and utility of institutions and also the behaviour of people.

At the end of the day it the state that has to uphold the law in the interest of justice and give the fact that law is to regulate the behaviour of the people but it should not be asserted or enforced upon them without their will, because it is for the good of the people and they should respect the law and thereby respect the procedure of the law. And it is quite reasonable to believe that if people will respect the law, they will never refer anything as justice or instant justice if it is utterly against its procedure of law but again, the same also goes for the agencies of the state such as police which should and perhaps must not refer the happenings like encounter as instant justice, and if they do so and don't criticize those who refer it as instant justice then it starts to show the malign intent of police also.

Having told about the justice its nature and its definitions in contrast to its practical aspect, what comes to my mind is that this urge of people to have instant justice can be dealt with by the criminal justice system because it is the faith of people in the (judiciary) criminal justice system that seems to have been diminishing due to long-time taken by the institutions to dispense justice and this delay is mainly due to the pendency of cases in a court of law. For the civil cases, the solution that seems viable is to approach for alternative dispute resolution, and especially arbitration that takes a case out from the process of judiciary and thus reducing the pendency of cases in a court of law and giving way to those cases which can only be decided by a court of law. In criminal matters, it is the state that has to discharge a heavy burden of proof which can be done by the evidence produced before it, and to have those relevant and admissible evidence or evidence of sterling worth on record we need better and scientific methods of investigation and also more number of judges in courts to dispense speedy justice and thus restore the faith of people in judiciary and criminal justice system.

[Author Alok Kumar is a 3rd Year student at Maharaja Agrasen Institute Of Management Studies]

Picture credits: Q for Quotes