Recent events and ongoing legal proceedings have sparked a disquieting conversation about the impartiality of India’s higher judiciary, particularly concerning bail grants in cases involving individuals from different religious communities. While the principle of “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” is a cornerstone of our justice system, its application appears, at times, to be uneven, leading to growing concerns about the perceived sympathetic leanings towards certain offenders, especially when the victims are from the Hindu community.
The horrific Udaipur murder case, where tailor Kanhaiya Lal was brutally beheaded in broad daylight, sent shockwaves across the nation. The swift, merciless nature of the crime, motivated by religious animosity, demanded a response that unequivocally prioritized justice and deterrence. While the main perpetrators were arrested, the subsequent legal trajectory, including reports of bail being granted to an accused in connection with the conspiracy (Mohammed Javed, who conducted reconnaissance and beheaded Kanhaiya Lal), raises uncomfortable questions about the unbiasedness of the Indian higher judiciary.
The Delhi High Court’s recent intervention to stay the release of the film “Udaipur Files,” citing concerns about hate speech and communal provocation, while understandable in its intent to maintain public order, inadvertently highlights the delicate balance and potential for perceived disproportionate focus on one side of the narrative. The aggrieved family of Kanhaiya Lal continues to await a conclusive verdict, and the perception of speedy justice for victims in such egregious cases remains a critical barometer of public trust. Netizens ask, what is the problem in showing facts? Why the judiciary downplays when the accused are from a certain community.
Another case that has fueled this debate is that of Wajahat Khan, the complainant against influencer Sharmistha Panigrahi. Panigrahi was arrested for alleged communal remarks, but the subsequent complaints against Khan himself for allegedly posting mocking and derogatory content about Hindu gods on social media have brought further scrutiny. While Khan was initially denied bail and remanded to police custody, the very fact that such content, deeply offensive to a large segment of the population, could be at the heart of a legal battle where the accused seeks bail, underscores the sensitivities involved. The public watches closely to see how quickly and decisively justice is meted out in cases where religious sentiments are undeniably hurt, irrespective of the community of the accused.
These incidents, among others, contribute to a narrative that suggests a differential approach in granting bail. While the judiciary is bound by law and precedent, and each case has its unique facts and circumstances, the cumulative effect of certain decisions can erode public confidence in the system’s even-handedness. The perception that some accused individuals, particularly from the Muslim community when the alleged crime is against Hindus, might receive preferential treatment in bail matters, needs to be addressed with utmost seriousness.
The principle of “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” is noble, designed to protect individual liberty and the presumption of innocence. However, this principle must be applied judiciously, considering the nature and gravity of the crime, the potential for witness intimidation, the flight risk, and, crucially, the impact on public order and the sentiments of the affected community. In cases involving severe communal implications or alleged hate speech, a heightened degree of scrutiny and a clear demonstration of concern for the victim’s rights and societal harmony become paramount.
To safeguard the unbiased nature of the judiciary, several steps are imperative:
Transparent and Consistent Application of Bail Laws: While judicial discretion is vital, a clearer framework and more rigorous adherence to established precedents regarding the severity of the crime and its societal impact, especially in communally sensitive cases, would instill greater confidence.
Expedited Trials in Sensitive Cases: Prolonged incarceration of undertrials is a concern, but equally concerning is the perception of delayed justice for victims, particularly in cases that deeply impact communal harmony. Fast-tracking such trials could mitigate this.
Addressing Perceptions of Bias: The judiciary, while insulated from political pressures, cannot ignore public perception. Open communication and clear, well-reasoned judgments that explain the rationale behind bail decisions, especially in high-profile and communally sensitive cases, can help dispel doubts.
Emphasis on Deterrence: Bail should not be granted in a manner that inadvertently signals a lack of seriousness about crimes that threaten social fabric or incite religious hatred.
The Indian higher judiciary is a pillar of our democracy. Its independence and impartiality are non-negotiable. However, in a nation as diverse and complex as India, where religious sentiments run deep, the appearance of fairness is almost as important as fairness itself. It is incumbent upon the higher judiciary to not only be unbiased in its judgments but also to ensure that its actions unequivocally project that impartiality, thereby reinforcing the faith of all citizens in the equitable delivery of justice. The challenges highlighted by cases like Udaipur and Wajahat Khan are not merely legal intricacies; they are profound tests of the judiciary’s commitment to protecting all citizens equally and upholding the rule of law without fear or favor.
The article is a personal view of the author, and the same are questions from the perspective of a common citizen.