The Kerala High Court's order granting compensation for framing an innocent expatriate in a false case and keeping him in jail for 54 days is an example of how citizens who are subjected to violation of their rights can get the protection they deserve from the judiciary. It was Thalassery native VK Tajuddin who was named and trapped in a necklace snatching case. He was working in Qatar and had come on a 15-day leave for his daughter's wedding. Even though those who were with him got out of their car to push a police jeep covered in mud, Tajuddin did not volunteer due to back pain.Then the way the police vented their anger was by accusing Tajuddin of being the thief in a CCTV footage running away, snatching a chain. The sessions court had denied bail, so he had to approach the High Court. The bail condition was that he should not leave the country without the permission of the court. He lost his job in Qatar because he did not report for work in time. When a senior police officer investigated the case on his wife's complaint, it was found that Tajuddin was not guilty. It was also found that the crime of theft against him was actually committed by a man named Sarath Valsaraj. Although it is not a solution to the pain that Tajuddin and his family have already experienced, the compensation ordered by the High Court is exemplary and welcome as a lesson. The court was able to intervene because Tajuddin fought a legal battle for this. While the case is said to be an example of the protection that citizens should get from the judiciary, one cannot lose sight of the sad truth that this is becoming a rarest of rare justice.
A verdict from the Supreme Court last week naturally has naturally drawn a lot of criticism in legal circles. The court's rejection of the bail pleas of two student leaders charged with communal violence in northeast Delhi during a peaceful protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) has raised new concerns about the protection of civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Of the undertrial prisoners who have been in custody for more than five and a half years, five were granted bail; two were denied bail. The delay in the trial is not the fault of the prisoners, but of the government institutions, including the court. Yet, the bail that should be granted under Article 21 of the Constitution is not being granted. Article 21, which upholds the right to life, also implies a speedy trial. The Supreme Court itself has ruled in the Najib case that the benefit of this section is also applicable to trials in UAPA cases. But even after five and a half years of incarceration of the accused, the court is now saying that the period of pre-trial detention has not crossed the threshold of impermissibility. Legal experts point out that no evidence other than the prosecution's arguments has been used as a basis for the court's denial of bail. And this when some of the prosecution's false evidence has already been exposed in lower courts. Overall, with the imposition of UAPA, the prosecution and the government gain excessive power to decisively influence even court decisions. This means that not only does the case itself effectively become a punishment, but it is also the government, not the court, that decides the punishment.
What benefit does it offer if the accused is found innocent after years of trial? Apart from the fact that the compensation awarded by the Kerala High Court may serve as a lesson, what loss will be compensated to those who have spent their lives in prison? Shouldn't the countless people imprisoned for the sole reason of disagreeing with, or protesting against the government's policies be protected by the Constitution? Prof GN Saibaba, who had struggled to even drink water in prison for almost a decade, was acquitted just seven months before his death. Yahya Kammukutty had to spend seven years in jail in the Hubballi case before being released by the court due to lack of evidence in the case. Mohammed Irfan spent nine years in jail in the Nanded conspiracy case; the court said in its verdict that Irfan was not guilty, and it was a fake case. In the anti-CAA agitation case, Assam MLA Akhil Gogoi spent 19 months in jail under UAPA. The NIA court acquitted him. Justice will be complete only when not only compensation is given in fake cases, but also punishment is given to the guilty policemen and others involved. While welcoming the example of the Kerala High Court, it is also necessary to say that the Supreme Court, which takes the line of the prosecution's arguments even in the matter of granting bail, should be ready to introspect.