Read the Printed Word!

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Public Servants and Public Sentiments


    These days sentiments are running high and it is very fashionable to say 'I am with Anna Hazare' or 'I am anna' . Even media persons suggest that the Govt should take cognizance of the public sentiments. Taking cognizance is desirable but taking actions in line with these sentiments can be disastrous.

    Public servants should never be swayed by the prevailing Public Sentiments. Here's an example from History.

    In May 1948, Nathuram Godse was tried , for murder of Mahatma Gandhi. The assassin was not a member of the mafia but was some one who had many things in common with the mahatma. He was well read, he was patriotic, his motive was selfless and he was idealistic. Only difference was that he did not believe in the absolute ahimsa. He believed that any one on the wrong side of dharma should be fought, as In Gita , Lord Krishna himself motivated Arjuna to kill the reverred Bhishma for being on the wrong side of Dharma ...!!!!

    So Godse gave a long deposition in the court on his motives for his actions. He quoted extensively from the scriptures to justify every action of his.


    The speech had its effects on the small gathering in the court.



    Justice Khosla, who was a member of the jury, wrote after his retirement:




'There was a deep silence when he ceased speaking. Many women were in tears and men coughing and searching for their handkerchiefs... I have no doubt that had the audience of the day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse's appeal, they would have brought in a verdict of 'not guilty' by an overwhelming majority."


    And the place was not Pune but Shimla; far away from the birthplace or stronghold of RSS or Hindu Mahasabha.

     Godse did not have the benefit of a public trial, Media, Facebook or Twitter. Had he had all these, it was quite possible that the sentiments in the court could have spilled over to cover the entire country, and the then Govt would been in a tight spot.

    In the actual course of events, Godse was sentenced to death and hanged . Among those calling for commutation of the death sentence for the defendants were Jawaharlal Nehru, as well as Gandhi's two sons, who felt that the two men on trial were pawns of RSS higher-ups, and in any case, executing their father's killers would dishonour his memory and legacy which included a staunch opposition to the death penalty.

    There was no place for sentiments and the law of the land prevailed.

    This is not a defence of Godse,, just an example to show that Govt, The Police and Judges have to act in consonance with the law of the land, not in line with the prevailing public sentiments.

3 comments:

teji said...

very well said sir.

gopan said...

Murali, your views, I am afraid are a narrow interpretation about the “Rule of Law” and it’s implementation, no matter what. To elaborate my point, let me FIRSTLY
QUOTE JUSTICE VR KRISHNA IYER IN HIS CLASSIC, “THE LAW’S ZIG ZAG COURSE” (WHICH IS A “MUST READ” FOR EVERY LAW-MAKER

“From Vasco da Gama to Warren Hastings ,India was looted and the ‘Rule of Law’ was a veneer of Western vintage legal order.….” Depradations escalated so terribly that Warren Hastings was impeached in the commons . Edmund Burke charged him in words which reflect broadly what the East India company and Queen Victoria's Viceroy and officers did in implementing ‘Rule of Law’. I quote Burke in parliament:

'I impeach him in the name of the people of India, whose rights he has trodden under foot, and whose country he has turned into a desert in the name of human nature itself ,in the name of both the sexes , in the name of every age , in the name of every rank , I impeach the common enemy and oppressor of all.' "

Justice VR Krishna Iyer goes on :

“ Many Indians were imprisoned for the sin of patriotism. Thoreau’s thought best present it (the traversty):

'Under a Government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.' ”

Justice VR Krishna Iyer goes on, yet further :

“…let us have no illusions about the ‘Rule of Law’ and the ‘robed brethern’. Socrates was poisoned to death by the rule of law. Slaves were continued in slavery by the US Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. Bhagat Singh was hanged by British Justice and Bhutto by Pakistani judges.

The rule of law represents one of the most challenging concepts of the constitution. The rule of law is a concept which is capable of different interpretation by different people and it is this feature which renders an understanding of the doctrine, elusive. Of all constitutional concepts, the rule of law is also the most subjective and value–laden.
The Rule of Law cannot be viewed in isolation from political society or economic conditions.”

SECONDLY, PRESENT EXTRACTS FROM THE ADDRESS OF THE THEN CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, JUSTICE CN BHAGWATI TO THE COMMONWEALTH LAW CONFERENCE (CIRCA 2009)

“…When a law comes before a judge, he has to infest it with meaning and content; and in this process of interpretation he makes … Law does not operate in a vacuum. It is intended to have a social purpose and an economic mission, and a truly great judge must always when interpreting the law, keep constantly in mind the hopes and aspirations of the people and requirements of the society…”

“…No one would respect the judges or the judicial function if they felt that all that the judges did was to mechanically transmit rules unreasoned by justice or equity…”

“…They( judges) no more make or invent law than Colombus made or invented America. Sir Fredrick Pollock was manifestly right when he said that Judges do make or alter the law. Law-making is an inherent and ‘inevitable’ part of the judicial process. Even when a Judge is concerned with the interpretation of a statute, there is ample scope for him to develop and mould the law.”

Regards,
Gopa

colmurali said...

Gopa sir, I only said, The Judges and Police have to delink themselves from popular sentiments. In a way Socrates was persecuted by people , not by a judge or a jury trying to interpret the rule of law.

There are many times in history, we see that one sane man can give a wiser decision than a majority, under the influence of a wave of popular sentiments. Godse's trial was just one such example.