Constitutional justice is non-negotiable (Retributive justice is a dangerous trend)

Excellent study material for all civil services aspirants - begin learning - Kar ke dikhayenge!

 Constitutional justice is non-negotiable (Retributive justice is a dangerous trend)

---

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

---

• Hyderabad encounter deaths: The police 'encounter' of four men accused in rape-death of a woman raised angry voices across India. The crime had been as shocking, as the after-effects. Some politicians had asked for public lynching of rapists!
• The murders continue: Despite tight criminals laws, and a fast-track judicial process, the most brutal of murders are continuing. Lesson is clear – sexual assaults are pervasive and response cannot be episodic, but systemic.
• What families feel: They mostly want instant justice, i.e. death for the 'accused' criminals. But that is not the universal view. But public demands for 'instant justice' are neither just not universally applicable.
• Retributive justice: Seeking instant justice through bullets cannot be the way in India. It is pure drawing of blood, nothing else.
• Heat of the moment: The process of justice needs detachment from heat of the moment. Rule of law and constitutional principles need to be remembered, while assurance is given to families.

1. Wanton killing doesn't serve the cause of justice
2. Grief of victims' families cannot decide the course of justice
3. A robust, stringent and competent investigation must be assured

• Public anger into law: The 2012 Delhi gangrape led to wholesale change in criminal laws, proving that public anger, channelised properly, can bring changes.
• Investigation process: Decades of serious work on constitutional principles has created standard processes for criminal investigations.

1. Article 21 of constitution guarantees life and liberty. No one, except the due process of law can take it away.
2. The police are directly bound by it, with no exceptions!

• Telangana December case: The 4 suspects were shot dead, when the investigation had yet to begin. The first step of criminal investigation - re-creation of crime scene - too wasn't done. Except the Police Commissioner, no names are known!
• Salwa Judum case, 2011: The case clearly said that modern constitutional principles required no wielder of power to claim that it possessed the right to perpetrate violence against any one, unchecked by law. That is rule of law that Indian Police need to be trained in.
• Power of One: The 2017 verdict in "Puttaswamy vs. Union of India" spoke of Article 21 rights as non-negotiatiable, non-derogable and not-suspended even in Emergencies. Death of unarmed persons is the worst violation of Article 21 rights.
• No law: Police, under no law, can kill. Self-defence as a plea sounds hollow against persons in custody. It means that the suspects were about to kill the police when they shot them. Even the suspects' confessions (taken while in custody) are yet to be examined by the court. Earlier HC decisions on encounters have been tough!
• Law could not operate: The rape-death case has abated without the law getting a chance to operate. A fresh case of four murders is at hand. India has chosen to be governned by the Constitution, and we have to learn its morality. Constitutional morality has to replace public morality, which is tough, as it's not a natural sentiment.
• Summary : India cannot choose the route of retributive justice, as it militates against all established notions of law.

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

Join UPSC Self Prep course | Online Course (PT Gurukul)  | Covid Special Course | Join PT courses

* Content sourced from free internet sources (publications, PIB site, international sites, etc.). Take your own subscriptions. Copyrights acknowledged.