By Saran Singh
Couple of months ago the Government released 138 Sikh detents from the desert jail at Jodhpur. This seemingly humane gesture however raised more questions than it answered. If they were innocent, why were they kept under detention for four years and more? Why have the remaining 200 been left behind the bars for fifth year of their captivity? Are they being used as pawns in some sordid political game of settling old scores with the Sikhs? The majority of those set at liberty consists of chronically ill and mentally deranged, which speaks volumes about the treatment meted out to them in jail. The prisoners still in jail face an uncertain future. The bizarre criminal case charging them with “waging war against the State” has made little headway. How can they defend themselves hundreds of kilometers away from their families? The special court holds secret sessions inside the jail when, in a throwback to medieval savagery, the detenus are produced in cages! If ever there was a true example of justice delayed is justice denied, this is it?
What is justice? The earliest lesson we learn in our childhood about the definition and quality of Justice is enshrined in the JAPUJI, thus: Dhaul dharam Kaya ka poot/Santokh thap rekhiya jin soot”; which in a free translation means: This earth of ours is sustained by Dharma that is born of compassion, and forbearance that holds the equilibrium. Dharma in this context does not connote religion but a set of universal ethical principles extending into spiritual realm that govern the destiny of the human race, which also include the rights and duties of the individual. Righteous action and just conduct are thus the foundations of human society on earth. Perhaps in that spirit of moral justice, the founding fathers of free India drafted a broadly democratic Constitution, Incorporating certain fundamental rights that ensure equality before law and the right to life and liberty of all citizens without any discrimination. From the same promise perhaps springs the axiom: let justice be done through heavens fall.
The status of these basic human Tights changed dramatically when an Emergency was clamped on the country in 1975. Even the Supreme Court then ruled, in the ADM Jabalpur case of 1976, that the right to life and liberty of the citizen in not enforceable during the emergency. The right to life and liberty was however restored with the change of Government, in 1978. But, again in an astonishing and cynical manipulation of political power, early this year, the Parliament passed the S9th Amendment applicable to Punjab exclusively (and by Implication, to the Sikhs) which confers on the government the power to suspended the right to life and liberty. All that the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) act, 1985 sought to do, by introducing special courts, secret trials, presumption of guilt against the accused and the shifting of onus of proof from the prosecution to the defense, has now been sanctified by the 59th Amendment. Consequently, all those suspected by the authorities can, be disposed of or liquidated at the will of the local police. Even the presence of presuming an accused to be innocent has been given up. It is thus that brazen official bulletins are daily issued of those killed or arrested by armed police being none other than ‘branded as “terrorists”. Indeed, the Government of Punjab, under President’s rule, took great pride, in a prominently displayed advertisement on Independence Day, that security police had killed 459 “terrorists” and staged 580 encounters, besides arresting 4779 “terrorists” during a span of 19 months. This is savage justice.
But in a democracy the Executive is not all powerful. Judiciary is the citizen’s best hope against violation of rule of law and injustice. Judiciary in India, has time and again, stood up against arbitrary and totalitarian tendencies of ruling politicians. A recent example: In August last, the supreme court acquitted Balbir Singh who (with two others) had been convicted and sentenced to death by the Sessions Court in the Indira Gandhi assassination case a Conviction and sentence which had been confirmed by a full bench of the Delhi High Court. The question no doubt arises: How could a bench of three learned judges of the High Court hold a man guilty of murder on the basis of evidence which another three learned judges of the Supreme Court found totally unacceptable? Nevertheless, the ultimate judgment restores, in a good measure, our faith in the judicial system.
This redeeming quality of the judicial process should enable members of our legal profession and Human Rights protagonists in Chandigarh, Delhi and’ elsewhere to challenge the continued detention of innocent men at Jodhpur and several other jails in the country. The argument that their detention is patently malafide should be reinforced by the contention that the 59th amendment of the Constitution is blatantly discriminatory and intended to perpetuate the instruments of repressions in Punjab.
(Courtesy: Sikh Review)
Article extracted from this publication >> December 2, 1988
