Coup On Law And Justice – 12[Media’s sin]

Actually, people should be self committed towards sincerity, towards truthfulness and to behave in righteous manner. The government rules, authorities etc. can control them to some extent only. The idealistic views, attitude could control them and prevent them from doing bad. The culture, the religion and their believe etc could prescribe their life style in righteous way. Society can keep them to feel shy to violate the rules and human values. In every era, there are selfish people, egoistic people to pollute this idealism and to destroy the righteous system.

So that so many blind believes, bad and congested traditions, blunt following culture and religion by omitting the real good in it, etc had mingled in the style of public. Efforts to pollute the idealism and good in society by selfish people and effort to eliminate the bad and limitless materialism in society by some great people are like day and night in the life, or the both efforts are parallel. But being normal people, after all we can do is –we should not do bad to society.

Hence, I want to say is that the courts cannot make complete justice to the society. In this instant result addicted era, people may lose patience in waiting to get justice in courts. The proportion of court staff while compare with the population of public and number of cases is too less and inappropriate. So late in getting justice is quite natural.

So that people prefer to get justice in private panchayathy. May the dragging of time and redtapisam in the field of law and justice target this only?

In the context, I want to expose an interesting feature to you. As per media projection, this is in our constitution. Media used to praise this feature or concept of law and justice with high pitch.

That is – Our constitution says that, “It does not particular that 100 criminals escape from punishment, but one innocent should not get punishment in courts”. According to this, our constitution, legal dept., bar councils, advocates, public prosecutors and judges will take care to save one innocent. They don’t mind to leave 100 criminals in this trial to save one innocent.

In fact, we don’t know whether such clause is there in our constitution or not. If one criminal get escape from punishment from law and justice, then can’t he punish 10 or 100 innocents with his criminal psychology in society? In such case, how far it is advisable, to release 100 criminals to save one innocent from punishment?

Then, it is better that – In spite of 10 innocents get punishment, but one criminal should not escape from punishment. Perhaps, this liberal treatment or concern towards the criminals is itself a coup. This is the reverse method to the Narada Neethi described in Maha Bharatham. In that context, Narada Maharishi taught Dharma Raja regarding the ruling of country.

There is a proverb among public regarding court judgment as “ఓడినోడు కోర్టులోనే ఏడుస్తాడు. గెలిచినోడు ఇంటికి కెళ్ళి ఏడుస్తాడు.”

That means ‘the person who defeated the case will cry in the court campus itself, whereas the person who won the case will cry after reaching the house.’

This illustrates us the mode of justice available in the present courts.