Victims finally get their Voice in India: Can question judgments

Ruchika Girhotra must be really proud of her death. After sixteen years of her lonely suicide, and running away from life, finally she has made her death meaningful. If at all the dead could see around, she must be the one most satisfied and fulfilled on this last day of 2009.

Not just because her sinner is having his turn in this world. But because the government decided to make a remarkable amendment to the Victorian CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code) giving victims the right to fight back against an ‘unjust’ judgment.

Ruchika’s case has brought forth in the public domain that ‘victims cannot be further more victimized’ because the court did not have enough evidence. The amendment in the CrPC has given the victims the right to appeal against a court order ‘acquitting the accused or convicting the accused of a lesser offence’. Under the amended section 372 CrPC, the victim will not need the permission of any law enforcement or prosecuting agency to appeal a court order. Till about now an appeal could have been made only if the prosecution so decided and most cases the victims had to be contended with whatever punishment was conferred to the convicted by the court.

A further new amendment to be notified is in section 357A where victims will be entitled to compensation if the offender is not caught and tried. More so in the case of child rape the police has to complete investigation within three months of registering the case.

In Ruchika’s case the CBI had concluded that Rathore had indeed ‘molested Ruchika’. But the offence is punishable under Section 354 (i.e outraging the modesty of a woman) of the IPC, and the punishment for which is imprisonment up to two years. The limitation for filing such cases extends upto two years. The CBI had to move an application for condoning the delay as the case had been filed a good 10 years later. However, Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) empowers the court to take cognisance after the expiry of the period of limitation if the court is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained or it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice.

In Ruchika’s case first of all it was justice delayed for nineteen years. ‘ Justice delayed is justice denied’. Justice was delayed, as the process for seeking justice was long and complicated. Ruchika’s case was not even registered until 1997 and investigations got concluded in 1999. But it took another ten years time for pronouncing judgment leading to a mere six months rigorous punishment and a thousand rupees fine. No wonder a laughing S P S Rathore came out of the court.

Rathore is convicted for outraging the modesty of a girl. The law says he could get a punishment for a maximum of two years and he got six months. That is fine. But, Ruchika has lost her life because of the trauma and the torture to her family. Her family suffered with hopes of justice for long nineteen years. And finally now Ruchika and her likes have the right to voice their opinion against the quantum of punishment conferred to their offender.

I really feel it is a great commendable change in our system. If justice is done it should also appear that justice has been done. Not with a judgment where the victim is abetted to suicide and the perpetrator walks off with a six months imprisonment.

In Rizwanur Rehman even after the hype and the media glare, the perpetrators are on bail walking freely even as his old mother silently cries in one corner of her small house. The same is the situation with the family of those been run down by the Bollywood hero Salman Khan. If we look around there would hundreds of cases where the high and the mighty have the power and the money to delay and influence justice.

With the victims right to appeal judgment, justice can still get delayed but will not be denied, that easily.

‘Rahul, it is not competency but opportunity that makes India’s Prime Minister’

India is a democratic nation. So when Rahul Gandhi addressing the group of students in Aligarh Muslim University was asked a very pertinent question by the students of the muslim community as to when can a ‘muslim become the Prime Minister of this country’, his reply really touched our hearts. We try to believe him for what he answered, ‘It is ones competency that makes a Prime Minister in India’ and ‘Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’ is the Prime minister not for which community he belongs to but for his competency and his high acclaimed Curriculum vitae’.

We wish it was true, for this should be the story of the biggest democracy of the world. But had competency that easy a factor, then Sonia Gandhi, the UPA chairperson and the President of the Congress party and of course Rahul’s mother would have had the opportunity to also lead the nation.

I raised the issue to one of my senior fellow journalist. And we discussed that had Rahul faced this question he would have replied in a la politician Rahul’s justification that it was not for competency that Sonia Gandhi did not lead the nation. It was certainly not the origin issue either. It was that ‘she abided by her much publicized inner voice’ that asked her to lead the Congress party of India, the biggest winning coalition ‘United Progressive alliance’ (UPA) but not the country.

Does it not sound far from true? And Rahul would have actually wanted all of us to believe this. But his discomfiture can be understandable when he conceded that there were other factors as well that were somewhat ‘secondary’.

It is true, that Manmohan Singh became the Prime Minister not because he came from the minority community but certainly not because he was the most competent person available then. He became the Prime minister in 2004 only because he suited the first choice of Ms. Sonia Gandhi then and till now. Until he signed the nuclear deal he was termed the weak Prime minister and there is no denial that with due respect to his competency he is still termed as a ‘caretaker PM', guarding the chair for a more deserving dynastic surname.

This does not mean that Rahul’s leadership qualities are being questioned. He does deserve to be the Prime Minister for the kind of leadership and political grooming he is displaying. But certainly India has even more competent candidates waiting for opportunities.

Democracy is the number game. It cannot really be criticized for not abiding by the majority factor. But democracy is also about representation of all. An American democracy made history with ‘Barrack Obama’ representing the 14% minority population of the African Americans leading the nation although he is half white by birth.

Indian democracy has a sixty percent average representation in parliament. That still means that forty percent are neither being heard nor can they say anything. Moreso, no wonder this sixty percent has in places been represented by ‘majority community based cent percent representation’ while the others went on almost ‘cent percent non representation’. Gujrat after the 2002 riots are the best example in this regard where the ruling government was voted to power with the cent percent majority community votes while the rest went without a say. This is the side effect of democracy or better still we can say Indian democracy. Hence no wonder our leaders look for more ‘divisive number game’ by their ‘divide Indian community politics’ funda for their leadership goals.

So. Mr. Gandhi I would definitely want you to believe that it is not just mere competency but also ‘the opportunity and the avenue to be competent’ that paves way to lead India. And those getting the opportunity are far privileged to compete with the ‘competent’ in the nation. And not just competent muslim leader but any one opportune enough shall definitely lead India