DailyPost 2396

Outlawed means a person who is a fugitive from the law. These are not normal offenders but are the ones who have reached a level of notoriety and that is where this sobriquet is provided to them. Outlawed are ones with whom a normal law-abiding person would think twice to interact, given a choice he will never interact. We are all aware of the number of lawmakers who carry criminal cases on their head. Alas, it is not a stigma for them or for the parties they represent. The mindset psychological issue comes into play, the person who has been on the wrong side of the law, will have scant respect for law.

What will be his interest in understanding a law being made, leave aside how much effort he would need to comprehend it. On the other side, lawyers and judges practice the same law in different ways. The gap of background, attitude, education, training, and practice is clearly visible. Over the years, it’s becoming clear that the law itself is being outlawed. Otherwise, how do you view a law breaker making a law. Is law only the word written in law books? Does no transaction happening session after session in the Parliament have the mandate of the law? Does the passage of the budget without discussion has any legal sanctity from a democratic perspective?

Providing pension for being a part of legislature for every term he is elected does not make sense. Are such laws not antithetical to other similar expenditure and financial rules of the government? Worse still is the fate of affidavits before the Election Commission of India and other similar offices. No one takes the responsibility of the data provided with no connecting records to boost and the legal purpose is also served. If academic qualifications come into question, what is the guarantee that the other facts are true with lots being law breakers amongst them. This privilege is not provided to any one else. Why not check it, it is job of the state. Is law not outlawed in this case as well?

What about the remission policies? How difficult it is to get a conviction from the lowest courts till the Supreme Court of India and then in a cavalier manner remission is provided. How can an executive type process be allowed to take over the judicial pronouncement? Let the courts decide if it were to happen. Good behaviour being pronounced on them for this purpose, is a travesty of justice. It is better not to talk of parole and all that. Government withdrawing criminal cases, does not make any legal sense, rather it gives a feeling of justice being dismembered. Sometimes the cases are against the very same persons who decide of its withdrawal. What about the NPAs being written off, how can that be a law? And tons of government orders issued in clear contravention of the word and for sure the spirit of law.

Sanjay Sahay

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

Scroll to Top