Introduction
The symbol of justice represents the fact that this law remains blind within and of self. Justice, on the other hand, is of vital value and usefulness to civilization to guarantee humanity’s well-being. However, it seems to us that it has fallen under the hands of a hard-core dominant entity that possibly influences the laws for every facto; as we have often said, the laws are blind to oneself, and hence this so-called strong group thinks itself above the judicial system. Those self-proclaimed godmen or swindlers simply avoid the consequences of breaking the law, giving the impression that the law is only enforced against the weaker members of society. Such dominance wreaks havoc on the rule of law’s credibility, particularly from the perspective of ordinary people. This article discusses how the law is a stooge of certain individuals, and how it has been exploited and driven against innocent people, earning them the label of “Found guilty” after being convicted in a short period of time. Travesty of justice is not limited to a person’s financial situation; it also includes various other elements, such as sexual identity and political status. Based on a false accusation by a woman, a man has got imprisoned for crimes he doesn’t ever perpetrate on several occasions. As previously said, the penalties of a travesty of justice, particularly in the justice system, are so severe that they dread and rebel in society. One of the most difficult duties is administering justice. The Supreme Court has authority over the whole nation, and its decisions are final and irreversible. As a result, the judiciary’s protector, the Supreme Court, ensures everyone’s right to justice, and these mistakes undermine the judiciary’s entire purpose.
Concept of Justice and its constant misuse
Justice is quite fragile and may be provoked by a variety of causes. In several instances, the court has made hasty judgments in order to clear up outstanding cases and plea deals in situations of personal vendettas between the plaintiff and the defendant, as the claimed suspected may be intimidated by the victims with false charges, forcing the accused to accept the false claims. There are many cases of judiciary malpractice, or corrupt judges, who are often paid by one of the dominant parties to dispose of the procedures. This is a complete travesty of justice, with disastrous societal implications. Though the distribution of news has gotten exceedingly quick with the introduction of e media, prejudiced media houses tend to conduct unofficial trials of a suspected and depict him/her in a manner that the accused is regarded as a convict in the majority of cases. One of the most famous instances of this position is Congress MP Shashi Tharoor’s request for an injunction on Republic TV Editor Arnab Goswami for airing information about Sunanda Pushkar’s death.[1] In addition, the Jasleen Kaur and Sarabjit Singh case is one of the most well-known examples, since Sarabjit Singh, the accused, was unfairly convicted by the media, and his whole life was ruined due to false claims made by a girl.[2] Furthermore, bribery adorns such failures on the ground. People who have personal ties to politicians and influential spokespeople menace the other party indefinitely without trial. To summarize, the impediment to justice is due to several different circumstances.
True, the court in a democracy cannot ensure a person’s right to justice. When an innocent person is imprisoned as a criminal defendant, it becomes very impossible for him to live his life as he did before being sentenced by the court. When an innocent person is found guilty of a crime he did not commit, the state must guarantee that the individual’s living conditions are restored and that incentives are provided for the individual and his family. When a person’s rights are infringed and he or she pursues justice repeatedly, the individual gets psychologically ill and feels tormented not only by the opposing side but also by the institution itself. The Nirbhaya Rape Case[3] is the case in this respect, in which the victim’s family received justice after 7 years of crimes when the convicts were given a death sentence. Nevertheless, this shows a lot of flaws in the legal system, as not all cases of rape get the same degree of assistance and compassion as Nirbhaya’s Although the state has made measures in this respect throughout the years, the courts have addressed the issue as well. In terms of the financial burden, the parties are supplied with free legal assistance, for not only the prosecution but also for the respondent. Lok Adalats, which do not charge additional court costs and are designed to expedite procedures, are also effective in administering justice.
Curative Petition
The Supreme Court approved a curative petition for the first time in the case of “Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Anr”[4] , to avoid a miscarriage of justice. In this instance, the court determined that a curative petition may only be brought if the plaintiff can show that the tenets of natural law have been violated. In addition, the petition has the burden of establishing that the court was unaware of the availability of a curative petition while making the judgment. Although curative petitions are frowned upon in extraordinary circumstances involving open court proceedings, they are one of the tools for preventing miscarriages of justice and limiting judicial authority abuse. The party who has been wronged has a right to make an application for judicial review for a second time to have its decision reviewed which must be done according to the court’s regulations.
Conclusion
It is undeniably true that miscarriages of justice are not always caused by court decisions, but may also be caused by the effect of the legislative and executive branches of government. Several cases have happened that demonstrates how the executive’s influence and legislation enacted by legislators might leave the court unsure of what judgement to issue. To be safe, courts often fail to pursue the road of justice, which results in a miscarriage of justice. To counteract this, the court is given the principle of judicial review, which allows the Hon’ble court to evaluate and confirm the constitutional legitimacy of any law.
Author(s) Name: VALLURI VISWANADHAM (DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY)
References:
[1] PTI, “Delhi HC Asks Arnab, Republic TV to Respect Shashi Tharoor’s Silence <https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/delhi-hc-asks-arnab-republic-tv-to-respect-shashi-tharoors-silence/article21241262.ece>
[2] NewIndianXpress, “Jasleen Kaur Case: Sarvjeet Acquitted after Four Years, Netizens Demand Apology from Kejriwal, Arnab for Maligning Him” <https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2019/oct/26/jasleen-kaur-case-sarvjeet-acquitted-after-four-years-netizens-demand-apology-from-kejriwal-arnab-2053322.html>
[3] Mukesh &Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi &Ors., (2017) 6 SCC 1
[4] Rupa Ashok Hurra V. Ashok Hurra and Anr 1999 SC 2870, (1999) 2 SCC 103
