When justice falters
Although the case filed against them was for sedition, the enquiry officer of the CID was very judicious in dropping it and, instead, pressed charges for vandalism, including damaging, and finally putting on fire a very expensive vehicle belonging to one of the former state ministers, which happened to be parked in the court premises.
The news editor of the TV channel, with the obvious intention of putting on display the offences while they were being committed, re-ran the footage, and we again watched, awestruck, as the court building and car window panes were being broken, and the car being set on fire by club-wielding, T-shirted adolescents; and not a lawyer of any kind was there on the TV image. Still, the charges have been pressed against some very eminent and internationally acclaimed jurists and lawyers of the country!
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. Abetting, we know, is as great an offence as the perpetration of the offence itself, and is punishable in the eyes of law. The lawyers named above have been charge-sheeted, we are told, because they incited the vandalism.
The police in our country have, many times in the past, been accused of pressing charges against eminent persons when the latter found themselves on the wrong side of politics. But how can this happen when a neutral caretaker government is in power, and when the police are directly under the control of the chief adviser-cum-president?
Just a few years ago, people would have said that the entire proceedings of such an apparently politically motivated case would be stopped when the accused approached the High Court Division. But that faith appears to have been shaken.
We do not mean to be disrespectful to, or even distantly contemptuous of, the highest court of law, and the people's last bastion for justice. But some of the decisions handed down by that court in a couple of cases having political implications appear to have thrown that house of justice into harmful controversies, tending to bring down its otherwise impeccable image.
The chief justice, no doubt, has the authority under law to assign or change benches in the High Court Division with regard to any case under consideration of that court. He may also stop proceedings of any on-going case. But the way the case challenging the authority of assumption of the office of the chief adviser of the caretaker government by the president himself was stopped by the chief justice has been criticised very widely.
I am no expert in law, and do not have the audacity to advise the chief justice, especially in matters of law and legality. But as an ordinary citizen of the country, I feel genuinely concerned when the highest court of law in the country gets involved in apparently injudicious decisions, miring itself into controversies. The same has been said of the High Court Division's orders in the appeal case of General Ershad. The court, I feel, was very much within its legal jurisdiction to pass the orders it did, but the manner in which it has been done has been questioned by many.
The famous saying "justice must not only be done, but should also be seen to have been done" comes to mind in this context. Since the justice handing down the decision in the case was himself the subject of a fierce controversy not so long ago, he should, in my opinion, have been extraordinarily careful in handling the case, at least in order to establish his own bona-fides.
The latest in a long series of controversial decisions by the Supreme Court has been the one with regard to furnishing of certain vital information by the candidates seeking election to the parliament. This was an across-the-board decision of the High Court Division applicable in case of all aspirants to membership of parliament from all the parties.
Under the now-stayed orders of the High Court, every candidate seeking election to parliament was required to furnish certain information to the Election Commission, which was supposed to be made public for information of the electorate so that they could know, beforehand, who they were going to vote for. This, I repeat, would be applicable to all who stood for election as MP.
Some of the information each candidate was supposed to furnish are: (a) his educational qualification; (b) his sources of income; (c) assets in his and in his family members' name; (d) debts he owed to banks and/or any other financial institutions; (e) the promises he makes to his electorates; (f) his criminal records etc.
This, in the opinion of all who care for a responsible parliament manned by committed people of integrity and competence, would be a step forward in the direction of good governance. This order by the High Court was so popular that nobody is on record as having uttered a word against this. But, just two days before the expiry of the deadline (the first one) for filing of nomination papers, this decision of the High Court has been stayed by a chamber judge of the Appellate Division.
There has rightly been a hue and cry in the media and in all manners of forums against this decision, and the justice delivering the decision has come under public scrutiny, and some unpalatable things have been said and written about him. Journalists have also dug out misinformation given to the court regarding the appellant in this case, which undoubtedly proves that the appellant was picked by certain quarters to serve their ulterior motive of hiding the information stipulated by the High Court Division. The presence in court of the ex-law minister while this case was being heard and decided upon does not throw a very flattering light on him.
The way the judgement was delivered, the hurry with which the Election Commission implemented it, vis-a-vis the delay in following the highest court's orders regarding the voter list, and the presence in court of the former law minister while the judgement was being delivered has made the entire thing look sinister.