It has been a long, long wait. But finally a verdict has been delivered by the Supreme Court. Yesterday’s verdict has been welcomed by all those waiting for justice, including Nirbhaya’s parents. Everyone appears pleased and relieved that finally justice has been done to Nirbhaya.
The Apex Court decided that this was a rarest of rarest criminal acts and thus endorsed the death sentence handed down by the High Court, to four accused.
Two other accused escaped the verdict of death by hanging. One had earlier committed suicide while in custody, by hanging himself, possibly due to shame and remorse. Another was protected by his age, being a little short of 18 when committing the crime.
The juvenile got away with the only sentence that juveniles can be handed down under India’s Juvenile Act – 3 years in a juvenile remand home. Such homes were designed in the expectation that the young mind can be influenced to change for the better – away from hardened criminals. Sadly due to this law the accused who as per media reports was the most brutal and aggressive assaulter got away with a merely a minor rap. He was old enough to commit such a heinous crime but not old enough to face the punishment! Some countries have done away with an age criteria for determining if a young mind can be influenced to change. There is realisation that youngsters are exploiting the juvenile age threshold to commit crime with impunity and thus making a mockery of the ass called juvenile law.
The legal process allows for a review petition before the Apex Court, and this will no doubt be granted with full transparency. Should the appeal fail at the Supreme Court, there is then the option of a Presidential pardon to commute the sentence to life. All avenues will be exploited to escape the death penalty handed down yesterday. So it should be in a democracy.
What if anything can we learn from this case that shook the conscience of the whole nation and brought so many on to the streets demanding quick and befitting justice?
We need to, as a society, ponder on the journey. Everyone was genuinely moved by the extreme nature of the crime and jolted us into realising how unsafe our streets for women and how difficult it is for the unconnected citizen to get justice. Undoubtable this was not the first of its type, but extreme nature of this one certainly caught the imagination of the media and was thus reported in all its gruesome and graphic detail, by both print and electronic media. Social forums simply exploded with outpourings of grief and ideas for action. There were candlelight marches and vigils all over the country. Several voluminous petitions were sent to the President and others. People demanded change. People demanded systemic changes. Even a film was also made that helped focus citizen’s mind on the need for change and justice, for all the Nirbhayas, both past present and future. Demand was for a punishment befitting the crime committed, not for revenge. Demand was for an effective deterrent against further such crimes against women. Demand was for making our society safer for women and for a change to speed up the justice delivery system – for delayed justice amounts to denial of justice.
Government responded with a commission headed by the late Justice Verma who submitted detailed recommendations for changes to the judicial system. Many of the recommendations have been implemented and some systemic improvements have been made.
We need to ask, is our society today any safer for women? Have we created an effective deterrent against crimes against women or indeed against crime per se? There have already been a number of Nirbhaya type crimes since them. Violent crimes continue, with perhaps seasonal and regional variations in volume and nature. An effective deterrent, as is the practice in some other countries is one where there is by statute a minimum and immediate punishment befitting the crime committed. India’s justice delivery system has failed to achieve this objective. We are still wrapped up in legal nuances and influence of do-gooders who remain focussed on human rights. The rights of the criminal appear take precedence over those of a victim.
As a society we appear to have almost forgotten our original demands. There was no follow up after the Verma Commission to see if the proposed changes adequately addressed the civil society wish list.? There no follow up on the implementation of agreed systemic changes? We as a society appear to be jolted into action, albeit temporarily – perhaps a consequence of today’s social media. Do we need regular prompts to remain focussed on the need for change?
As a society, we appear to have not learnt that we ourselves need to change in our attitude towards criminal behaviour and women and fellow citizens in general. We appear also to have not learnt of the need for precautions in our day to day life – cases of women being assaulted by cab drivers continue!
So the change that is required is not only in the speed and effectiveness of our justice system, but also in our own behaviour pattern and our own psyche, which is too callous towards basic precautions and not serious enough about cultivating a caring and just society.
Build India Group has been working on a program of fostering a better citizenry by influencing the young of our society. It has also recently launched Symphony Of Harmony to bring all citizens together to reject all forms of violence and foster peace and harmony in society.
Judicial system alone cannot deliver the change that we desire. In a democracy ‘governance’ is by the people. Civil society too must play its role in improving governance. We need to be a caring citizenry. We need also to reflect on the what is required of us by article 51A of the Constitution. The Constitution bestows rights, but also responsibilities. For a just and equitable society assimilation of both in our DNA is essential.
It is time for us all to reflect on the need to be supportive of and join the movements initiated by Build India Group.
Anant Trivedi
Ceng MBCS CITP