Opinion - Editorials   

Crass disregard for the law

The attack by Shiv Sena activists on the house of Anjali Waghmare, the lawyer appointed by a Mumbai special court to defend Mohammed Ajmal Amir ‘Kasab’, reflects a crass disregard for the rule of law and the principles on which it rests. This act of intimidation is a part of the Sena’s ongoing campaign to prevent lawyers from defending the lone terrorist captured alive in the attack on Mumbai in November 2008. Earlier, two lawyers who volunteered to take up Mohammed Ajmal’s case were assaulted. The party has declared — in its editorial mouthpiece Saamna — that the only justice that remains to be done is to hang him in public. Those who oppose legal representation for Ajmal deliberately obscure the world of difference between providing someone with legal counsel and morally justifying the horrific crimes he is accused of. The right to a fair trial, which the Supreme Court of India has held flows directly from the right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, lies at the very heart of the criminal justice system. It goes with a slew of rights such as the right against self-incrimination, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the right to legal representation. At a broader level, the right to a fair trial can be construed as a human right that all civilised societies must cherish and uphold without compromise.

Ms Waghmare, the wife of a police officer, must be commended for making a stand against the mob and deciding that she will indeed represent Ajmal. Her attitude has been hearteningly different from that of a couple of other lawyers, one of whom flatly refused to accept the defence counsel’s job at the risk of losing his licence. The stance of professional bodies has itself contributed to lowering the bar. The legal fraternity’s call to boycott Kasab — reflected in the Bombay Metropolitan Magistrate Court Bar Association’s resolution forbidding its members from representing him — was in keeping with the Sena’s campaign. Ajmal’s right to legal aid and counsel is incontestable in principle and also on practical grounds. Everything we know about the case against him tells us it is ironclad. India can demonstrate that it has solid evidence that the conspiracy to unleash terror in Mumbai was hatched by the Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan only if he is tried fairly and convicted after being provided competent legal defence. Leaving Ajmal, a Pakistani national, no choice but to defend himself would amount to an own goal. The lynch-mob mentality of the Sena and the blinkered vision of so-called professionals who demanded the boycott of Ajmal are at odds with the foundational principles of the rule of law as well as common sense.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Crass disregard for the law
A boost to open access
Why inclusion makes global sense
Mainstream Hindus frown upon open-air pyre campaign
In a desolate Iraqi village, war is far from over
Corrections and clarifications
Welcome
Sena attack
Varun’s arrest
Court verdict
‘If you don’t have the magic numbers, the Third Front could be important’

Copyright © 2009, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu