Endless police probe means denial of justice

Recently, at an event organised by a journalists association, the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana decried the media trial and irresponsible comments against judiciary by the media personalities. This is, indeed, a matter of great concern for all right thinking people.

CJI Ramana, who himself had a stint as a journalist prior to taking a plunge into legal profession, is a forthright person. He minces no words to call a spade a spade. Unfortunately, the so called experts on the Constitution have unduly added 'Press or Media' as the fourth pillar of democracy. In fact, the Constitution of India itself is overtly or covertly silent about such a distinction accorded to print and electronic media. The expression terming the media as the fourth pillar is the product of hollow imagination by the so-called experts of the Constitution.

And this creation of fourth pillar for agenda-based journalists is not without a purpose. True, Legislature, Executive and Judiciary are the three pillars of democracy vividly described in our Constitution. But the journalists with agenda, particularly the agenda of defaming the government of the day and extending support to the destructive elements within the country and outside, have usurped the fourth pillar for their own convenience. The Constitution itself is silent about this so-called fourth pillar, except a general provision in the form of Article 19. Even this particular Article does not grant 'unlimited' freedom either to the press or television journalists or anybody for that matter. This freedom is subject to the condition that the State may impose 'reasonable restrictions' as it thinks fit.

Therefore, while a matter is under investigation, by public authority such as Police, Customs, Income Tax etc.; no journalist how so ever 'big' he or she may be can interfere with such investigation by way of adding opinions, angles, interpretations, motives, historical references and all other kinds of rubbish stuff. Similarly, when a court has been seized with a case, it is none the business of media to sit in judgment and direct or misguide a court of law in a sub judice matter. Unfortunately, some media organisations with a clout on administration and vast readership try to equate criticism of judges and courts with that of politicians and bureaucrats. The immunity enjoyed by the judiciary has its own history and any mischief by an yesterday-born Johnny posing as a journalist to deride judiciary cannot be tolerated in the larger interest of the nation. The CJI on this count is absolutely right. Let's only hope the CJI in exercise of his powers, tightens the noose around the neck of such agenda-based irresponsible journalists at the earliest.

However, it would be an injustice to the media to brand it alone as a villain in this sordid story. The root cause of media trial and undue interest in justice delivery system shown by the journalistic fraternity is the snail's speed of legal process which takes decades together to finalise a case. Prior to submitting a case to the court for inquiry and trial, if it is a criminal case, police takes its own time. It is not uncommon to find that in the name of 'investigation', the rudderless, corrupt and sometimes over enthusiastic police takes its own sweet time to complete investigation. In the name of investigation, often, the people, mostly poor ones and the people devoid of money or political power, are harassed, tortured and sometimes even killed by the men in khaki.

Unfortunately, the investigating agencies are not held responsible for harassing and torturing people in the name of endless investigation. Indeed, this is a very serious matter and deserves to be considered with utmost urgency. A time-limit to end the police investigation has to be fixed by the Parliament or the Apex court.

Pecuniary limits of

consumer fora revised

In order to reduce the burden of cases on the District Consumer Forum, the Consumer Affairs Ministry has revised the pecuniary limits of all consumer courts. Hereafter, complaints where value of goods and services is Rs 2 crore and above will be looked into by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. The District Commission will have jurisdiction up to Rs 50 lakh, while the State Commission will have the jurisdiction to entertain complaints from Rs 50 lakh to Rs 2 crore.

No compromise in rape cases: AP HC

There cannot be a compromise or settlement against the honour and dignity of a woman, opined the Andhra Pradesh High Court recently, and dismissed a petition of the victim in a rape case seeking the Court's permission to compromise.

Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, delivering the judgement, also observed that rape was an offence against society and it was not a matter to be left for the parties to compromise and settle.

In the instant case, one Kankipati Kalyan Babu was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 342, 417 and 420 of IPC by the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Vijayawada. Another accused Kankipati Vijayakumari was also convicted under Sections 109 read with Sections 376, 342 and 34 of IPC. After conviction, citing the compromise arrived at with the interference of elders and well-wishers, the victim filed a petition seeking permission to compromise the matter stating that she fell in love with accused No 1 and they decided to marry, but due to some reasons it was not materialised. She also added in her petition that due to some misunderstanding, she had filed a police complaint alleging the above-mentioned offences.

'Court cannot force cohabitation'

In an epoch-making judgement, the Gujarat High Court has ruled that a court cannot compel the wife to cohabit with the husband against her will. The court also referred to Order XXI Rule 32 (1) and (3) of CrPC which provides that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be enforced except by way of attachment of the property of the other party or compensation and mesne profits.

The Division Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Niral Mehta delivered this Judgement in the case titled, Jinnat Fatima Vajirbhai Ami vs Nishat Alimadbhai Polra.