Barbaric law overtakes civil law in Afghanistan

Indeed, the people are baffled at the 'dramatic' developments in Afghanistan during the week. Though the fall of the democratically-elected Ashraf Ghani's government was imminent sooner or later after the pulling out of US troops, the magic-speed with which the turn of events has taken place in the Pashtun country, speaks volumes for the conspiracy and behind the curtain games.

True, the self-appointed guardian and liberator of Afghans, the US was fed up with its two decades of stay in the disturbed land, called Afghanistan. But, what is more surprising is the total failure of Doha confabulations between the stakeholders, namely the US, the elected government and the Taliban. Other stakeholders such as India, Pakistan, China and Russia too were hopefully waiting and watching the political developments. At one point of time, it was canvassed that Taliban had assured to adopt peaceful methods of governance if the ruling government agreed for the change of guard.

However, hopes for peaceful transition of power have been dashed. Still what is worse is the largescale bloodshed, loot, bombings and imposition of strict curbs on the freedom of people, particularly the women. Amidst meek surrender of over 3.5 lakh well-equipped defence forces of Afghanistan before barely 45,000 barbaric Talibans, confusion was confounded after the fleeing of the President Ashraf Ghani lock, stock and barrel. Like the US forces who deliberately provided the 'parting gift' of weapons, tanks and transportation vehicles to the bare-footed barbaric Talibans, the President of the day, who was duty bound to defend the Constitution, flew out of the country leaving the hapless people in lurch.

There is no gain saying in that the US President Joe Biden had taken this unfortunate step of withdrawing American forces from Afghanistan, because what he has done is what his predecessor, Trump had decided in January, 2019. Donald Trump is on record shedding 'crocodile' tears for the US soldiers posted in Afghanistan, while other neighbouring nations like Pakistan, India, China and Russia had done nothing significant to take on the Talibans. This late realisation was buttressed with argument of colossus financial loss of the super power. Well, 20 years ago, nobody, including the Afghan themselves, had not 'invited' any outsiders, including the US into their country. If the US chose to invade Afghanistan, it had its own reasons for doing so, of course some valid ones. But to blame other nations for not doing their best in Afghanistan, appears to be too much of asking. The US has to blame itself for creating the monster, called Taliban in order to take on the dreaded Al-Qaeda.

The Indian government's stand has been quite consistent from the 9/11 incident, though its intensity has varied from one elected regime to another. Today, when the United Nations, Human Rights Commission and other NGOs championing the cause of freedom, Human Rights, women empowerment, child health and safety, differently-abled person's welfare etc., are toiling hard, capturing the power of governance by Taliban is certainly a cause of worry.

Clearly, all nations including India, US, Pakistan, Russia, China, France, Japan etc., stand accused for their inaction, lack of unity and harmony in addressing the issue and only focusing on their own individual interests. Though much noise is made time and again by the world leaders and powerful nations, the hobnobbing with Taliban and its terrorist forces behind the curtain has nullified all the positive effect.

Therefore, even now it is not too late for the world comity to realise that terrorism is a global phenomenon and no peace meal treatment to this issue could generate the desired results i.e., peace and harmony in the world. Civil laws are meant for creating and sustaining the civil society and violence has no place on the earth for it is an outcome of barbaric laws.

SC on Section 170 of CrPC

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Koul and Justice Hrishikesh Roy has observed that personal liberty was an important aspect of the Constitutional mandate. Disagreeing with the trial court's view that unless a person was taken into custody, the charge sheet could not be taken on record, the bench observed that Section 170 of CrPC does not impose an obligation on the officer in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the charge sheet. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or in a heinous crime or where there was a possibility of the accused influencing the witnesses or the accused might abscond, the Court added.

Underlining the importance of personal liberty, the apex court added: "If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the investigating officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons…why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused?"

Supreme advice to young lawyers

In any case, a lawyer should be prepared to argue the case in the court; even though he or she may be seeking the adjournment of the matter because of non-availability of senior advocate, said Justice DY Chandrachud, while reacting to an oral prayer of a young lawyer for the adjournment of a case on the ground that the senior lawyer was not able to address the court on that day and the said junior lawyer had not gone through the case file.

The bench comprising Justice Chandrachud and MR Shah tendered this useful advice to all the young lawyers of the country. The court said that its advice was without malice against a particular lawyer, but it was a sort of elderly guidance to the young legal fraternity.