RTI reveals delayed justice
SOURCE - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/RTI-reveals-delayed-justice/articleshow/7636348.cms
NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court may have given a memorable farewell to Justice S N Dhingra on Tuesday on his retirement, but it is yet to implement one of his key directions on ensuring speedy justice for those rotting behind bars, an RTI reply has revealed.
In early December last year, while acquitting a mother-in-law of the offence of causing death of a woman due to dowry harassment, the judge found that two of her family members continued to languish in jail during the entire trial period (2001-03) and the appeal period (2003-2010) because their cases never came up for hearing in time.
In his strongly-worded verdict acquitting Rani, the judge noted: "In this case the HC didn't find time to hear the appeals of other two appellants, who continued to remain in jail during trial as well as appeal period for no crime. In all such cases where appellants are in jail and sentence is not suspended, the HC should fix a time limit for disposing of such appeals. Neither the criminal should be let off by default as HC has no time to hear appeals, nor should the innocents rot in jail by default. The whole criminal justice system needs overhauling… and it shouldn't be the case that higher courts are kept occupied by persons with money or power as is the case today."
Nearly a month after the judgment, advocate Manish Khanna decided to find out how seriously the HC administration took Dhingra's directions on providing speedy trial to the poor. Khanna filed an RTI seeking details of steps taken on that front and if HC had taken cognizance of what the judge wrote. The reply came only last month and the RTI admitted the judgment is "under submission to the authorities".
Surprisingly, the RTI reply also argued that what Justice Dhingra wrote was in fact not a direction at all, in a bid to justify why no action was taken by the administration. "No direction as such was given to the Registry in the criminal appeal no. 205/1992", the reply informed Khanna, sidestepping other queries on who should be held responsible for the delay that cost two people their freedom.
On being asked by Khanna if HC had any policy on according speedy hearing to persons who remain in jail, the administration merely repeated earlier directions given from time to time since 2009 that appeals by those in jail may be equally distributed and heard on a priority basis. Perhaps the best farewell the court can give to the judge, who always focused on speedy trials/justice, is by framing a policy that achieves this goal.
In early December last year, while acquitting a mother-in-law of the offence of causing death of a woman due to dowry harassment, the judge found that two of her family members continued to languish in jail during the entire trial period (2001-03) and the appeal period (2003-2010) because their cases never came up for hearing in time.
In his strongly-worded verdict acquitting Rani, the judge noted: "In this case the HC didn't find time to hear the appeals of other two appellants, who continued to remain in jail during trial as well as appeal period for no crime. In all such cases where appellants are in jail and sentence is not suspended, the HC should fix a time limit for disposing of such appeals. Neither the criminal should be let off by default as HC has no time to hear appeals, nor should the innocents rot in jail by default. The whole criminal justice system needs overhauling… and it shouldn't be the case that higher courts are kept occupied by persons with money or power as is the case today."
Nearly a month after the judgment, advocate Manish Khanna decided to find out how seriously the HC administration took Dhingra's directions on providing speedy trial to the poor. Khanna filed an RTI seeking details of steps taken on that front and if HC had taken cognizance of what the judge wrote. The reply came only last month and the RTI admitted the judgment is "under submission to the authorities".
Surprisingly, the RTI reply also argued that what Justice Dhingra wrote was in fact not a direction at all, in a bid to justify why no action was taken by the administration. "No direction as such was given to the Registry in the criminal appeal no. 205/1992", the reply informed Khanna, sidestepping other queries on who should be held responsible for the delay that cost two people their freedom.
On being asked by Khanna if HC had any policy on according speedy hearing to persons who remain in jail, the administration merely repeated earlier directions given from time to time since 2009 that appeals by those in jail may be equally distributed and heard on a priority basis. Perhaps the best farewell the court can give to the judge, who always focused on speedy trials/justice, is by framing a policy that achieves this goal.
