P.A. Chacko
‘Stone him. Forget about any due process. There is an allegation against him. A complaint has been registered for an alleged offence!’
Such a terror provoking refrain seems to be growing in our country. On one hand, the Marauding Lynching Vigilante groups are on the rampage creating terror and havoc. They are a law unto themselves. As if to outdo them, another group of the public, educated and elite, seems to have unleashed another terror through public hearing on people against whom allegations of misconduct or criminal act has been imputed. More often than not, they are supported and even instigated by the media through news papers, journals, channels and even social media using the net. Then there are those who garland the convicted. It is a strange world!
When a complaint has been led at a police station, should every accused plead guilty immediately and surrender to the verdict of the public for ‘instant justice’? A complaint to the police is the first step in the due legal process. It may have a long way to go with investigations, ling charge sheet, trial, final verdict, appeals and appeal upon appeal and what not. One wonders, if at the initial legal stage itself, it is warranted to show undue public devotion to the cause of the so-called victim without clinching proof.
It is quite another matter when one is caught red-handed or admits his crime. Even there he has the protection of the law and the right for a defence lawyer till the case is sorted out. The law clearly says that ‘a person is innocent till legally proved guilty.’ So, the public’s rushing in to cry foul at an alleged offence is not called for in a sane society. It is similar to lynching as proof of a sick society.
It is quite distressing to see media channel programs, often sponsored, going on an over drive with their bits and pieces of news and sitting in judgement and infiating public passion against the accused. Such anefarious actis an equivalent of lynching or mob prosecution. Even before any legal process of investigation has got underway, rumour mongering media outlets are busy digging out bits and crumbs, conducting their own inquest, post mortem and public court process as if it is their prerogative to play the super judge and as if to bag a brownie point before anyone else. Such a process can mislead, confuse or even contradict the due process of law. Planting half-cooked evidences by broadcast-crazy agents can convince the gullible among the public that the accused deserves instant punishment. The unfortunate result of such activities can often lead to character assassination or defaming an institution altogether.
When rumours gallop way- ward mobs run amuck to create terror and even lynch people who may be innocent. Be one a temple priest or a church person, a molvi, a politician, or an ordinary citizen, one has certain legal and fundamental rights to one’s name. Even as one may stand accused, one has the right to get a defence lawyer and take the benefit of the due legal process till the case concludes.
Concern of the public at the occurrence of a crime is understandable. In fact people are duty bound to cooperate with legal authorities to search out evidences or give evidence when called for or even report a crime when they come to know of its occurrence.
Calling on people in authority to step down or resign as soon as an allegation surfaces is ill fitting in a decent society. Such a stipulation has no legal binding. But,it could be considered, at the most, a moral responsibility or ethical behaviour to step aside till the legal process is gone through. But, without such a legal binding, no one is legally obliged to resign or step aside. It was unfortunate to hear froma Supreme Court lady lawyer who recently made a statement that a person is legally bound to step aside or resign form one’s official post when there is an allegation. When asked for the legal reference to her statement she refused to divulge.
In a recent TV channel discussion a reputed advocate had this to say. ‘In the case that is being discussed here,it appears that those who are present here have already come to the conclusion that so and so has committed the alleged crime and hence …. ‘He also reminded those present including the anchor that it is legally logical to ask what happens if the alleged accused is found to be innocent through the due process. What if the complainant is lying?
His words should form a warning to all of us before jumping into hasty conclusions about an alleged crime or about a suspected culprit. In enlight- ened Kerala one educated person stated that if so and so appears in public he will be stoned. If such is the case, talibanization of our mindset and its consequent action are going to be reality.
Even as we are educated, are we people motivated by legal principles or moved by emotions and feelings which are catapulted by rumours or partisan interests? Here no one is saying the guilty should be sheltered or protected. It may be a moral proposition for a person in authority to step down or vacate the office till the conclusion of the case. But, but he is not legally bound to do so.
Let us, public and media channels, give the ‘due legal process’ a fair chance before our stepping into the slippery path of evidences and counter evidences which are within the purview of the judicial process. More harm may be done by hasty actions harming the reputation of persons and institutions. A literate world is expected to be an enlightened world. Will the gentleman with stone in hand allow himself be stoned or lynched when he him- self is faced with an allegation of a crime?
Leave a Comment