In 1888, a high court in Allahabad ruled that cows are not “sacred” animals as defined in section 295 of the Indian Penal Code and Muslims could not be held accountable for slaughtering them. (1).

There are accounts from colonial times of Muslims slaughtering cows during Bakr-Id festival although there is no religious decree to support cow slaughter (In fact, the Supreme Court in Mohammad Hanif Qureshi Vs. State of Bihar in 1958 had held that the Muslims had no religious right to kill cows on Bakr-Id).  Although some argue that the cow was merely used as a symbol for mobilizing Hindu opinion by Arya Samaj and other leaders of the movement, the fact that it spread rapidly over large parts of India in a day and age where communication and travel was very difficult is indicative of the underlying strength of emotions towards this animal.

In the 1870s, cow protection movements spread rapidly in the Punjab, the North-West provinces, Awadh and Rohilkhand. Arya Samaj had a tremendous role in skillfully converting this sentiment into a national movement. The first Gaurakshini sabha (cow protection society) was established in the Punjab in 1882.(2) The movement spread rapidly all over North India and to Bengal,Bombay, Madras and other central provinces.

It has been mentioned that

Signatures, up to 350,000 in some places, were collected to demand a ban on cow sacrifice.(3)

The strong sentiment around cow-slaughter – and Mahatma Gandhi’s strong views on the matter – led to its inclusion in Constitution under Article 48 (Part IV; Directive Principles of State Policy) which states that: (the) State shall preserve and improve the breeds and prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves and other cows and drought cattle.

It has also been mentioned that when this issue was being debated in Parliament, many wanted a total ban on cow slaughter but this was opposed by Nehru and thus a compromise was reached by including it in terms of Directive Principles. I do not have sufficient references (also see #164) to back this up but hope to find links to debate/discussion in Constituent Assembly on this matter. However, it appears that during the debate in the Constituent Assembly at least some Muslim Members (Mr. Z.H. Lari and Syed Mohammad Saidulla?) were willing for cow slaughter prohibition to be kept as a Fundamental Right.  Regardless of the deliberations in Constituent Assembly – and since then – the cow continues to be an object of great reverence and is widely considered sacred – cutting across castes and regions in India.  Laws banning slaughter of cow and its progeny have been promulgated in almost all states in India except Paschim Banga, Kerala, Nagaland and Meghalaya (the latter two have a predominant Christian population). The ban on cow slaughter was in news last year too when the government of Karnataka passed a law that prohibiting the slaughter of buffaloes along with cow and its progeny (a law protecting the cow was already in force in Karnataka since earlier).  And as noted above, this has been in news once again prompted by a move by the government in MP to seek punishment of up to 7 years for slaughter of cow (note the punishment is not for consumption of beef but for slaughter of cow).

The  cow and bullock have a venerated place in the ancient traditions of Bharat. The cow  is referred to by various names in the Vedas including Aditi, KamaDhenu and Aghnya (that which cannot be killed). Other than its milk and by-products, a cow has numerous “economic” uses. Cow dung is known to act as an anti-septic and reportedly acts as an air purifier when burnt. It also acts as a coolant when mixed with mud and applied to walls of dwellings. There is also some evidence to suggest that the chemical composition of cow-urine may have medicinal properties (and may play a part in cancer therapy).

One of the many names of Bhagwaan ShriKrishna’s is “Gopal” (Protector of Cows).  Muhammad Ghori was apparently pardoned by Prithviraj Chauhan when he asked to be treated like a “cow” (unfortunately I don’t have full & reliable references). There are records to suggest that Akbar issued firmans prohibiting cow-slaughter to respect the sentiments of the large Hindu population during his reign. This “ban” continued during the reign Jehangir and ShahJahan. The cow may also have been one of the triggers for the uprising against the British in 1857.

Before we proceed any further, it would be instructive to read the judgement of the Supreme Court in the landmark case on this matter, Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar(& Others), April, 1958 (emphasis added):

So approaching and analysing the problem, we have reached the conclusion (i) that a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of she-buffaloes, male and female, is quite reasonable and valid and is in consonance with the directive principles laid down in Art. 48, (ii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes or breeding bulls or working bullocks (cattle as well as buffaloes) as long as they are as milch or draught cattle is also reasonable and valid and (iii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she- buffaloes, bulls and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they cease to be capable of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals cannot be supported as reasonable in the interest of the general public.

Note that while the Directive Principles are unenforceable by themselves but constitutionality of laws is usually examined in the light of directive principles.  Even stronger than the 1958 ruling, is this conclusion from a (relatively) recent judgement by the Supreme Court (from 2005) in the case of State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab (emphasis added):

In the case before us, we have material in abundance justifying the need to alter the flow of judicial opinion.…Independent India, having got rid of the shackles of foreign rule, was not even 11 years old then. Since then, the Indian economy has made much headway and gained a foothold internationally. Constitutional jurisprudence has indeed changed from what it was in 1958, as pointed out earlier. Our socio-economic scenario has progressed from being gloomy to a shining one, full of hopes and expectations and determinations for present and future. Our economy is steadily moving towards prosperity in a planned way through five year plans, nine of which have been accomplished and tenth is under way. We deal with the findings in Quareshi-I seriatim.

Finding 1 :…So far as the State of Gujarat is concerned, we have already noticed, while dealing with the documentary evidence available on record, that fodder shortage is not a problem so far as this state is concerned and cow progeny, the slaughtering whereof has already shown a downward trend during the recent years, can very well be fed and maintained without causing any wasteful drain on the feed requisite for active milch, breeding and draught cattle.…the documentary evidence available on record shows that beef contributes only 1.3% of the total meat consumption pattern of the Indian society. Butchers are not prohibited from slaughtering animals other than the cattle belonging to cow progeny. Consequently, only a part of their activity has been prohibited. They can continue with their activity of slaughtering other animals. Even if it results in slight inconvenience, it is liable to be ignored if the prohibition is found to be in the interest of economy and social needs of the country

Finding 3 : 47 years since, it is futile to think that meat originating from cow progeny can be the only staple food or protein diet for the poor population of the country. ‘…The real problem, facing India, is not the availability of food, staple food and protein rich diet; the real problem is its unequal distribution. The real challenge comes from the slow growth of purchasing power of the people and lack of adequate employment opportunities. ….It will, therefore, not be correct to say that poor will suffer in availing staple food and nutritional diet only because slaughter of cow progeny was prohibited.

Finding 4 :…For multiple reasons which we have stated in very many details while dealing with Question-6 in Part II of the judgment, we have found that bulls and bullocks do not become useless merely by crossing a particular age. The Statement of Objects and Reasons, apart from other evidence available, clearly conveys that cow and her progeny constitute the backbone of Indian agriculture and economy. …This Statement of Objects and Reasons tilts the balance in favour of the constitutional validity of the impugned enactment. …

In the light of the material available in abundance before us, there is no escape from the conclusion that the protection conferred by impugned enactment on cow progeny is needed in the interest of Nation’s economy. Merely because it may cause ‘inconvenience’ or some ‘dislocation’ to the butchers, restriction imposed by the impugned enactment does not cease to be in the interest of the general public.

The former must yield to the latter.…The Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 (Gujarat Act No. 4 of 1994) is held to be intra vires the Constitution.

Let us now look at the “rational” or “liberal” argument against a ban on cow slaughter:

1] That Hindus ate beef in the past – as mentioned in the Vedas. The first point against this argument is the fact that there are contradictory statements within the Vedas regarding “beef eating”. Very likely, these are the result of incorrect and improper translation (e.g. see this post on Agniveer.com) and therefore cannot be relied on as being authoritative. But even if one was to assume so – for the sake of argument – this is a bad argument because not all past practices are carried over to current times (neither should they be; e.g. past practice of not dining or marrying outside the “jati”). The second (important) point to note (and ask) re. the Vedic references is: are these references really laudatory – and praiseworthy – or are “beef-eaters” looked down upon? Furthermore, most (all?) references are to the meat of the bull – not cow; and even of there were references to cow, they refer to a sterile cow; also see part II of the post on Agniveer)

2] The second “liberal” argument against a ban on cow slaughter is that the state shall not dictate what I can and cannot eat; that the only reason the state can impose its views on such matters is if you harm others in this process, or if doing so will harm the environment. A good illustration of this argument is in this post by Sanjeev Sabhlok (also FTI colleague):

If eating beef is not lethal and it doesn’t kill others, then there is no cause to interfere in the freedoms of others to eat beef.

Now substitute “eating beef” with “taking drugs” or “having multiple wives” – and you will begin to see why this argument looks somewhat shaky. Freedom cannot be absolute – and is usually circumscribed by prevailing social norms and expectations. If such expectations overwhelmingly treat the cow as an object of reverence – or if there is general social revulsion towards slaughter of a particular animal – perhaps there is case to be made for a law banning slaughter of cows?

It is obvious that cow-slaughter arouses strong emotions in people. Bear in mind that people elect a government (in a democracy) to make/propose laws and take decisions that represent the collective will of the society (in addition to maintaining their safety and security). In a democracy, laws will usually be a manifestation of how the society wishes to govern itself (including in the form of a Constitution) – and are usually based on traditions and norms. If the society and the community wishes that the slaughter of cow ought to be prohibited in a land where it has been worshiped and held sacred for millennia, is that not a good reason for having such a law? Unless public opinion change to such a degree where such a ban becomes irrelevant?

I am tempted to point out that another argument (which is sometimes) used in this discussion – along the lines of “let society decide on its own to not eat beef, if it so wishes, but governments should have no role to play in this” – would mean government should have no role in banning untouchability or demands for dowry, right?

Please note that a nuanced argument can be made supporting a ban on cow-slaughter while maintaining neutrality with regards beef consumption (this would mean – for instance – that restaurants are free to import beef and serve it to their customers).  Anyway, enough food for thoughts for now, I guess. I will stop at this point – with the caveat that my thoughts on this matter are still evolving. Therefore, happy to be challenged, contradicted and of course supported!  Comments and thoughts, welcome as always

P.S. While I am broadly supportive of the government’s bill in MP, I worry seriously about the apparent “presumption” of guilt and putting the onus on the accused to prove his or her innocence (these are also the reasons – among others – on why I worry about the Communal Violence Bill and an all-powerful “Jan Lokpal”).

References/ Supporting Documents (the three below, courtesy Wikipedia; have not been independently verified):

1. “Religious Nationalism, Hindus and Muslims in India”, Peter van der Veer, pp. 83 and 86, 91 and 92 ISBN 0520082567
2. “The Making of an Indian Metropolis, Colonial governance and public culture in Bombay”, 1890/1920, Prashant Kidambi, p. 176, ISBN 9780754656128
3. “Vishnu’s crowded temple, India since the great rebellion”, pp. 67-69, Maria Misra, 2008, Yale University Press, ISBN 9780300137217

Here is a richly linked and referenced web-page on the history and background to this question and the matter of cow slaughter

Here is an unusual case for eating beef – from a Hindu perspective and a case for cow slaughter – from an economic perspective (this also has an excerpt that suggests Swami Vivekananda reportedly favoured beef-consumption).

Surprising Find of the Day: the following quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi (December 1927):

As for me, not even to win Swaraj, will I renounce my principle of cow protection.

Related Posts: If Muslims revered cattle – excerpt and  Of “Sacred Bulls”, Divinity & Development

Also see: This is funny.. and the Deoband fatwa on “beef-eating”

P.P.S. I was not aware that certain types of meat consumption is banned in Australia (so I guess Hindus are the not the only ones who are irrational!):

RSPCA Australia believes the consumption of cat and dog meat should be expressly prohibited in statute. Cats and dogs hold a specific place in Australian society as companion animals. Eating cats and dogs is therefore offensive to mainstream Australian cultural values. RSPCA Australia believes that state governments should follow the lead of South Australia and create specific offences for eating cats and dogs...

Additional (suggested) Readings: Eating less meat may help save the planet and Eating red meat may be really bad for you..

Her “Open Letter” is a refreshing change (and very welcome development) in the current high-on-decibels and low-on-reason atmosphere and cacaphony of protests and agitations against development and related issues (including land acquisition). Please do read and share widely.

*** Excerpts from the “Open Letter” (emphasis added) ***

Arundhati, I’m sorry to have to write a critical letter to you. I very much liked The God of Small Things. I also appreciated your intervention on the nuclear issue…

I can understand the urgency you feel for the people of the valley and the victims of misguided development projects everywhere, but I feel that you’re missing many things.

…The first time I even heard of the Narmada dams was around 1984. ..A little after that, in 1986, many of the same activists of the Shramik Sanghatana and SMD organised an “Adivasi-Forest Conference” in Shahada. I had come to Dhule to help in rallying support among the social and political activists of the district.This was just after Medha had made her first visit to the district. She had crossed the Narmada with Achyut Yagnik of Ahmedabad; their boat had capsized but somehow they had made their way down through the district, stopping off at Shahada to meet Shramik Sanghatana people the main organisation of adivasi toilers in the region-and then coming to Dhule where she formeda support organisation. All this was fine. There were only two critical questions raised. One was mine: Medha at that time was following the guidelines of the World Bank in demanding justice for evictees, and these guidelines identified only male heads of families as eligible for alternative land. We were at the time already starting to raise the question of land for women, and I felt it was too bad that the landlessness of women was being neglected in the process of rehabilitation and building anew.
But that was minor. Looking back, probably a more important negative reaction came from Waharu Sonavane, at that time the leading young adivasi activist of Shramik Sanghatana. Waharu had been in the movement since 1971-72, working with Ambarsingh Maharaj, a truly unique indigenous leader and with the Shramik Sanghatana and Shramik Mukti Dal, a Maharashtra-wide organisation of Marxist activists. Waharu is a poet and an intellectual though he has never had the opportunity to learn English, and I will quote for you a few lines of one of his poems.. It is given as a title the English word (a word that also has come in Marathi) “Stage”.

We did not go on to the stage, neither were we called.

We were shown our places, told to sit.

But they, sitting on the stage, went on telling us of our sorrows, our sorrows remained ours, they never became theirs.

There is more but that is the main point. ..More recently also it was Waharu who raised the question to Sanjay Sanghvi (sic) of the NBA, “Why is it that there is no top ranking adivasi leadership in the NBA?” This was at a seminar organised by the Pune University Women’s Studies Centre. Sanjay could not answer except to say “But all our village leaders are adivasis.”

…There were and are real questions about the way in which the leadership of the NBA relates to and “represents”, uses, its adivasi and non-adivasi farmer following. One of these has to do with an area you should be an expert in : words.
Why the term “tribal”? I know, nearly every English speaker in India, apparently including supporters and activists of the NBA, uses “tribal” for adivasis when speaking in English. (In Indian languages all now use “adivasi” or some equivalent). But, though established now, the term “tribal” is an insulting and demeaning word, inaccurate even from a social-scientific point of view; and I don’t know of any group of indigenous people the world over who would accept it for themselves. (I won’t here go into the debate about whether or not “adivasis” should be called “indigenous people.”)
The only reason it survives in India is that because of the abysmal state of education in general among adivasis and even worse state of English education, there is no one really in a position to protest. Otherwise there would be massive objections, just as Dalits have thrown out the term “harijan.” Those classified as “scheduled tribe” in northeast India – people like Mr. Sangma made clear long ago their feelings about being called “hill tribes”. The fact “tribal” is still a widely used word in English, I think, has something to do with the way people are a little careless about the identities and real feelings of those they represent. And if this includes you and the NBA, then you should think about it.
In any case, Waharu’s earliest objection was in terms of non-recognition of what they had done before; and this was very early on in the anti-Narmada movement, when there was no NBA as such and Medha and others were still talking mainly of rehabilitation and not of total opposition to big dams as such. But the tendency of not recognising the work of others, or really being willing to admit that there has been a history of struggles, has remained.

…In Maharashtra the largest “peoples’ organisation” or alliance working on rehabilitation issues is the Maharashtra Rajya Dharangrast va Prakalgrast Shetkari Parishad (Maharashtra State Conference of Dam and Project Affected Farmers), which has been working since the 1970s. It has been a broad platfor…These have nearly all been involved on issues or irrigation and water as well as problems of dam evictees.

People in these organisations were concerned about the social justice of dams and the sustainable use of water from very early. But they never opposed dams as such. The main slogan of the people involved in their struggles was “first rehabilitation, then the dam”. Later this was linked to “equal water distribution” the demand that irrigation projects should be restructured to provide water to every family in every village in a watershed area. Movements are going on for this, for example in regard to the Krishna Valley dams.

…Why does anybody need “big dams” or “big irrigation projects”? Arundhati, there is a very simple issue here that urban people – I hope this doesn’t sound too sarcastic – find hard to understand. Water is needed, not only for drinking, but for agriculture….You cannot grow crops without water, and when there is only 500mm of water per year – this is true of three-fourths of the Krishna valley area in Maharashtra and of much of Gujarat including Saurashtra and Kutch – then some external water, provided by canals, is necessary to supplement rainfall.

…You say that the thousands of dams built in India since independence have simply led to eviction on one hand and waterlogging on the other, but this is not true. So many farmers have benefited from irrigation water, and millions who have not can see this, and want such benefits also. Our arguments are not against big irrigation projects as such, but against badly conceived ones; big projects can be sustainable and work in a decentralised manner.

…In any case, most of those who stand to lose their lands for dam projects are farmers, whether adivasis or non-adivasis, who understand the need of water for agriculture. Their refusal to be victims of development does not mean an opposition to development; they would like a share in it; they would like it to be just and sustainable.

…I ask myself, what kind of movement is this, what kind of movement is the NBA? Whose movement is it, anyway?

…That requires a few comments about the question of development. You are, like many urbanites and many people in Europe and North America who buy food from the market every day, very pessimistic and even antagonistic to the idea of Indian farmers getting into “commercialised agriculture”.

…Economists have even argued that the average wage for agricultural and basic manual labourers at the time of the Arthashastra represented the same in money terms as the average wage during colonial times; and it has not changed very much in the 50 years of independence. That is your traditional, non-commercialised society. Do you really think the adivasis, dalits and shudra or Rajput farmers of the Narmada valley want to keep that? Are you so convinced that the thousands of dams built since independence have been an unmitigated evil? Or that the goal should not be to restructure and improve them rather than abandon them?

*** End of Excerpts ***

Read it in full here.  Related Posts: Of Kondhs, Aluminium and Vedantapur, “Kaam Aadmi” Politics – Can it work?

Also read: Obstruction As Ideology by Madhu Kishwar and the counter-response.

1. “Kashmir is the ‘most heavily militarized zone’ in the world” or its variations: “There is an Indian soldier for every ten civilians in Kashmir”; “The Indian troops-to-Kashmiri people ratio in the occupied Kashmir is the largest ever soldiers-to-civilians ratio in the world”
2. The last two decades of violence in the state have left 10,000 missing and 100,000 dead

Pragmatic_desi has done a fine job of exploding the first one…Excerpts from Mythbusting: Soldiers-to-civilians ratio in Kashmir (emphasis added):

These myths are based on many erroneous premises. Let us start with the police. The total sanctioned strength of Jammu and Kashmir police, including the civil police and the armed police, is 68,125. Based on the actual strength of the police in 2009 and the population of the state as per 2001 census, the police-to-population ratio comes to 683 per 100,000 people. As per 2009 data, the national average for the police-to-population ratio is 133, while the UN mandated figure is 250-300. Considering the violence experienced in the state during the last two decades, the existing police-to-population ratio is not abnormally high.

Next come the paramilitary forces. As per this statement by the Union minister of state for Parliamentary Affairs, Planning and Science and Technology, Ashwani Kumar, there are 86,260 people from the central forces deployed in the complete state of Jammu and Kashmir. In 1989, before the insurgency started, there were 28,782 central armed forces troopers deployed in the state.

Finally the army. The official figures of the army men deployed in the state is not available but in 2007, the army authorities had reportedly stated that there are 3,37,000 soldiers deployed within the geographical boundaries of the state. Leave alone the fact that at least3o,000 soldiers have since moved out of the state, the deployment of soldiers needs to placed in the right context.

Barring the Rashtriya Rifles, which is a specialist counterinsurgency paramilitary force manned by the army, all the Indian army units are deployed on the Line of Control, Actual Ground Position Line (both with Pakistan) and the Line of Actual Control (with China). Even the Rashtriya Rifles are mainly deployed in the semi-urban and rural areas of Kashmir. There are a total of 65 Rashtriya Rifles battalion in the state, and at an estimated average of 1,000 soldiers per unit, this would lead to 65,000 Rashtriya Rifles troopers in the state.

And so…

…the actual strength of security force personnel dealing with the people in the state is nowhere near the figure of 7,00,000 which is usually floated in the media.

Barring the 2,20,000 policemen, paramilitary troopers and Rashtriya Rifles soldiers deployed among the population, the rest of the army soldiers shall continue to be deployed on the LoC, AGPL and LAC irrespective of the internal security situation in the state. Even among the 2,20,000 troopers, a fair share of the police force would still be required to maintain the law and order in the state which has a population of 1,25,48,926 as per the 2011 census.

Meanwhile, let us get another fact out of the way. These deployments are for the complete state, and not just for the Kashmir Valley. For example, the Rashtriya Rifles units are deployed as Counter Insurgency Force (CIF)- R in Rajouri and Poonch, CIF-D in Doda, CIF-V in Anantnag, Pulwama and Badgam, CIF-K in Kupwara, Baramulla and Srinagar, and CIF-U in Udhampur and Banihal. Kashmir Valley, or the Vale of Kashmir, forms just 7 percent of the area of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (for details of area in J&K, see this post). Because of the high density of population in the Valley, as compared to other mountainous regions of the state, and the increased threat of militancy and civil disturbance (as witnessed in 2010) in urban areas of the Valley, an impression is created in the minds of many visitors to the state capital that the complete state is over-militarised and teeming with gun-toting soldiers at every nook and corner. The facts are actually to the contrary.

A recent report in Times of India by Randeep Singh Nandal demolished the second myth…Excerpts from ”State data refutes claims of 1 Lakh killed in Kashmir“:

..They are figures that have been quoted so often that they are widely believed to be true: almost 100,000 dead Kashmiri civilians and 10,000 people who have disappeared in the last two decades. From public meetings in small villages to TV studios, from online pages to newspaper reports, these figure are cited and printed, used to stir emotions and silence voices in Kashmiri society, even presented to visiting ambassadors and printed in petitions to the UN. Except, nobody bothers to explain just how these figures were arrived at.

TOI accessed Jammu & Kashmir government documents to arrive at the truth behind the urban legend.

Here’s what the data says. In the last 21 years, 43,460 people have been killed in the Kashmir insurgency. Of these, 21,323 are militants, 13,226 civilians killed by militants, 3,642 civilians killed by security forces, and 5,369 policemen killed by militants.

…The records also show another slaughter that has gone on ceaselessly since 1990, a slaughter that nobody comments on, nobody laments: of Kashmiris killed by militants since 1990.

These deaths are the ugly truth that Kashmir has learnt to ignore. The civilians killed fall into a black hole that Kashmiri society never discusses, remembers or protests against. …No local newspaper dares print a story accusing militants of killing a civilian; the operative word is “unidentified gunmen”.

These 13,226 Kashmiris just do not exist in the collective psyche. There are no websites to them, no petitions and no organizations to keep alive their memory. Their only contribution has been to cement fear in 70 lakh people, where a clear distinction exists between what is said privately and in company. Where even people who are victims of militant violence are more comfortable talking about security forces and their atrocities.

Next time you hear these words or statements, make sure they are corrected…and while on this, take a moment to remember the innocent victims of terror in the terror in the State..

Related Post: Nail the LIES. Make your voice heard on J&K…

Some of you must have read the recent news-report of a bill proposed to be tabled in Parliament to ensure “time-bound justice for citizens“. The bill has some interesting provisions, including

…measures like discharge of an accused in a traffic offence if trial is pending for more than two years due to non-service of summons. “In case of trial of offences compoundable under the Indian Penal Code, or any other law in force, pending for more than two years, the court shall discharge the accused if the trial has not commenced and close the case“

Press reports mention that the

…bill will provide for speedy and cost effective trials by laying down a 60-90 day timeline for inquiry and a three-year deadline for completion of court proceedings.

This should be cause for celebration, I guess…Or should it? Is the solution to too many laws and a clogged up judicial system, another law (or another “Right”)? As Joginder Singh writes in “Gift-wrapped bunkum“

…Of late, the Union Government has exhibited a penchant for regurgitating Fundamental Rights already embodied in the Constitution in the form of New Rights, as if it was doing a favour to the people by providing them with newer and unprecedented entitlements. Take for example the National Employment Guarantee Act which promises wages that are so low that one is destined to starve and even that paltry sum of money is siphoned off, or the Right to Education which is meaningless given the inadequate number of schools, lack of proper class rooms and the absence of teachers. The proposed Right to Justice Bill is the latest addition to the list.

Without ensuring that there is adequate infrastructure to implement laws, if by simply promulgating them development could have been achieved, India would have been a heaven by now.

Our policy-makers (and well-minded civic activists) often confuse symptoms with causes..and this bill is a great illustration of that. Instead of remedies to fix a broken system, what we get is another law that mandates a 3-year deadline for disposal of cases. One doesn’t need to be a genius to figure out what happens if the time-frame is exceeded. The over-burdened system gets further swamped with even more cases…

The problem is actually quite simple: We have too many laws and the Government is the biggest litigant.

Another law (or “right”) will almost certainly make the situation worse. As Joginder Singh writes:

Seventy per cent of the over three crore cases that are pending in Indian courts involve the Government as either petitioner or respondent. To make matters worse, 90 per cent of those cases fail and should not have been filed in the first instance, as the Prime Minister has pointed out.

The problem of too many laws and a over-zealous government is compounded by the acute manpower scarcity. As Joginder Singh points out in his article, UP – with a population of 200 million – has only 65 sitting judges (95 of the sanctioned 160 posts are vacant)! Not surprisingly, its number of pending cases in  the state is approaching 10 Lakhs. Depressingly, 30% of criminal trials have been pending for 10 years, of which 9 % for more than 20 years.

More depressingly, the Supreme Court itself is not hopeful about speedy justice. As a 2-judge bench observed recently:

The system has already become sick. What can be the expectation of the common man for speedy justice? Even in the Supreme Court, a special leave petition takes eight years to reach final hearing.

The backlog is pervasive. For example, a recent report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (SARC) titled, “Ethics in Governance” noted:

…election petitions remain pending for years and in the meanwhile even the full term of the House expires, thus rendering them infructuous.

This even as Sections 86(6) and 86(7) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 say that “the High Court shall endeavour to dispose of an election petition within six months and also as far as practicably possible conduct proceedings on a day-to-day basis”.

Given this situation, shouldn’t the focus and emphasis be more on “fewer laws and better implementation?” As Tavleen Singh writes:

We do not need another law. We need a justice system that implements our existing laws speedily and effectively. If the Lokpal can have the power to fast track justice, why not our judges?

Former Chief Justice of India Justice J S Verma recently observed that, “We have enough laws, in fact the maximum in the world. The problem is in faithful implementation.”

The government would do right to focus on that. instead of bringing in another law disguised as a “right”.  We dont need more laws. We need a better justice system. We need faster implementation. We need accountability. More laws will not solve our woes; they will add to them.

Related Posts: Do we Really Need a Jan LokPal? (and somewhat related) “Har Shakh Pe Ullu Baitha Hai“

Excerpts from “Judicial Murder: The Case of Devinderpal Singh Bhullar“ by Gurmeet Kaur (emphasis added)…

…For readers unfamiliar with the case, Devinderpal Singh Bhullar (also known as Prof. Bhullar) was charged and convicted for a 1993 car bomb blast in New Delhi targeted at the then Youth Congress leader, M.S.Bitta, that had killed 9 other people. Bitta escaped with minor injuiries.

…Saving him from the death sentence unjustly conferred upon him, especially in this day and age of media-led revolutions, should not have been difficult because there is clearly no case against him.

Devinderpal’s case is one where even a layman can see that the death sentence given to him is a travesty of justice…

He was tried by the designated court in Delhi in January of 1995 under TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act) for allegedly participating in the attack on Bitta. After facing six years of trial, he was sentenced to death by the designated judge on Aug 25, 2001.  His sentence was based on a “confession” by Devinderpal purportedly recorded by a Deputy Police Commissioner during the police remand. This “confession” was recanted at the first opportunity by Devinderpal as a confession obtained by coercion and torture.

..Further, Devinderpal’s conviction under TADA was wrong on another ground, his alleged crime of conspiring to assassinate Bitta should have been tried on the charge of “attempted murder”,  not as an “act of terrorism”  as per definition and scope  of the Act. 

None of the 133 eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution identified Devinderpal as being present at the crime scene or planting a bomb in the car. There was no evidence to connect him with the crime, except for the alleged ‘confession’.

A second defendant in the case was acquitted on the same charges, in the same trial, because the only evidence against him was Devinderpal’s “confession” – the very same one on the strength of which Devinderpal himself was convicted.

Furthermore, this ‘confession’ was said to have been recorded on a computer and was never produced in the court.

In the Supreme Court appeal of his case in 2002, the presiding judge on the bench, Justice M.B. Shah acquitted him of all the charges in a dissenting judgment, stating that too much doubt remained on the authenticity of the alleged ‘confession’ to the police.

“It is trite to say that one person alone can ever be held guilty of criminal conspiracy for the simple reason that one cannot conspire with oneself,” Shah had ruled.  But the two other judges, Justice B.N. Aggarwal and Justice A. Pasayat,  upheld  the death sentence. The case failed to qualify for capital punishment because of the requirement that the sentence be unanimously held by all the judges.

Devinderpal became the first person in independent India to be condemned to death on a split verdict by a Supreme Court bench.
Since January 1995, Devinderpal has spent 16 long years in Indian prisons, and since August 2001, the day of his conviction, much of the time has been spent in solitary confinement…Today he suffers with severe mental and physical ailments.

*** End of Excerpts ***

The whole case around the conviction of Devinderpal Singh Bhullar is tenuous – to say the least.  As Gurmeet mentioned, “Even a layman who is not familiar with intricacies of law will agree that Bhullar should have been a free man today.” Based on what I have read so far, this feels hard to argue with..

Unsurprisingly, there are serious efforts underway to have the courts and the President review the case. Less than two weeks ago, the Shiromani Akali Dal issued a statement asking the PM to “personally see that the highest norms of jurisprudence, legal precedents and issues of statesmanship are kept firmly in view in the matter and a sympathetic view taken.”

The statement also cited “a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case involving the state of Orissa — where some Christians accused of engaging in conversions were murdered.” In that case, the SC had apparently  “commuted the death sentence of the accused to life imprisonment in view of the “religious and emotional factors” which led to the crime.”

I have not read anything recently which suggests a review may happen…but Devindarpal’s family continues to live in hope. I am keen to hear your views and comments on this case…which reminded me of the Curious Case of Dilip Patidar*.