Ajay Kumar,Senior Journalist
Lucknow (U.P.)
Mob:- 9335566111
There has always been a deep confusion in the minds of ordinary people regarding the functioning of the Indian judiciary. The law books state that the goddess of justice wears a blindfold, meaning that she weighs the rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the famous and the unknown on the same scale. However, the ground reality often appears to shatter this ideal. When an accused person is popular in society, has the emotions of millions of followers attached to him, and possesses the financial power to hire an army of expensive lawyers, the attitude of the courts often appears very different from that shown toward an ordinary accused who is neither famous nor financially strong. The incident that took place in Patna on June 2 once again brought this entire question to the forefront. A dispute occurred between Gyan Bindu GS Academy and Khan Sir’s coaching institute located in the Kadamkuan police station area. There was violence and even firing during the confrontation. In this entire matter, the Patna District Court granted interim protection against the arrest of the well-known educator and highly popular teacher among millions of students, Khan Sir. On behalf of Khan Sir, his lawyer Arvind Mauar filed an anticipatory bail petition in the court of Principal District and Sessions Judge Rupesh Dev in Patna. After hearing the matter, the court granted him interim relief and ordered a stay on his arrest.
On the other hand, a completely different picture emerged in the same case. The court rejected the bail petition of Roshan Anand, Director of Gyan Bindu Academy, and he is currently lodged in jail. In the same matter, a hearing was also held on the regular bail petitions of Khan Sir’s two security guards, Deepak Kumar and Talebar Singh, who are in jail, and their case remains pending. In other words, those who reportedly said that they fired shots into the air on Khan Sir’s instructions are behind bars, while the person on whose behalf these allegations are being made is free under judicial protection. This contradiction is not limited to this single case. Indian judicial history contains numerous instances where the social status of the accused, his popularity, or his financial strength appeared to influence the judicial process. In 2002, Salman Khan faced charges related to the hunting of a blackbuck. In this case, which continued for decades, a lower court in Rajasthan found him guilty, but the High Court later overturned the verdict. Throughout this period, it was no secret that a famous actor did not have to endure the kind of difficulties that an ordinary person would have faced. Bail was granted immediately, hearings were repeatedly postponed, and ultimately he was acquitted.
Similarly, in Sanjay Dutt’s arms case, judicial proceedings continued for several decades. Although he did spend time in prison, legal relief was available to him at almost every stage. The stories involving politically influential accused persons are even longer. Lalu Prasad Yadav was convicted in the fodder scam, yet he repeatedly obtained bail on grounds of illness and other considerations. Jagan Mohan Reddy was arrested in a disproportionate assets case, but later secured bail from the High Court and eventually became Chief Minister. In all these cases, one common thread that becomes visible is the role of powerful and high-profile lawyers. One bitter truth about the legal profession in India is that, alongside the skill of legal argument, the name, stature, and connections of a lawyer often become equally important in court. When a prominent lawyer appears in a case, the entire courtroom atmosphere changes. Such a lawyer presents the same facts from a new perspective that an ordinary lawyer may not even be able to articulate effectively. He weaves together arguments about eligibility for bail, the nature of legal provisions, previous judicial precedents, and constitutional safeguards in such a way that his client appears, if not innocent, then at least deserving of the benefit of doubt in the eyes of the judge.
In Khan Sir’s case as well, his lawyer argued before the court that the police had invoked serious charges such as attempt to murder and provisions of the Arms Act merely to create pressure, and that no person had suffered a gunshot injury in the incident. How effective this argument was became evident from the court’s order. The influence of powerful lawyers is not limited to courtroom arguments. Often, it manifests in procedural maneuvering. Delaying hearings, filing fresh petitions, approaching one higher court after another, and ultimately reaching the Supreme Court are all tools used in major cases to buy time. As long as the case continues, the accused either remains out on bail or, even if imprisoned, manages to obtain facilities far beyond the imagination of an ordinary prisoner. In addition, prominent lawyers often possess informal connections within the judicial system. It would not be appropriate to claim that judges are bought, because evidence of such conduct is extremely rare. However, an experienced legal expert certainly knows which court, which bench, and which day may prove more favorable for his client.
When ordinary people observe all this, their faith in justice begins to weaken. They see that a security guard, who was acting on someone’s instructions, is in jail. A coaching institute director, who may have acted under someone else’s directions in a similar manner, is also in jail. Yet the person who stands at the center of the entire episode, and whose security personnel reportedly admitted that they fired weapons on his instructions, remains free under judicial protection. This duality exposes a major weakness of the judicial system, one that has been discussed for reform in every decade, yet little appears to change on the ground. The principle of justice states that the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. The provision of anticipatory bail was created precisely to ensure that an innocent person does not suffer the hardship of imprisonment without justification. However, the problem arises when this very provision becomes a shield for a select few, while everyone else continues to stand beneath the sword of the same law. Until greater transparency is introduced into the judicial process, and until the distinction between rich and poor accused persons is eliminated even within courtrooms, India’s justice system will continue to remain an uphill battle for the common man.
