Everytime a politician uses the excuse "matter is sub-judice" to duck a difficult question, the journalist asking the question should ask "So?"
The whole concept of not commenting on matter that are under consideration of a court is redundant ever since the jury system was abolished in India. The jury consisted of ordinary people who were not expe...rts in law and were susceptible to be influenced by different noises coming out of talking heads on TV or public statements given by different parties.
Now that the cases are heard by a learned judge and decided by him/ her only, there is no question of using the "matter is subjudice" to not answer a question. They can use any other excuse to duck questions but not answering because "matter is subjudice" is IMHO about as relevant a reason as "My dog has distemper".
The jury system in India was revoked after the famous case of Kawas Maneckshaw Nanawati vs. State of Maharashtra. KM Maneckshaw was a honourable navy officer who killed his best friend Prem Ahuja as Prem was sleeping with Kawas’ wife and when discovered refused to marry “every woman he slept with”. There was a massive support campaign carried on by almost the entire Parsi community in India, led by the famous RK Karanjia who ran the magazine Blitz. Incidentally, Prem Ahuja’s case was represented by a very young Ram Jethmalani.
Due to the sustained sympathy campaign the jury was influenced to say that Nanavati was not guilty. This made it clear how open the jury was to being influenced by whats happening in the world around them and the jury system was scrapped in India after this case in 1959-1962.
While I am sure this had nothing to do with Kavas’ acquittal I find it interesting to mention that:
“Nanavati had moved in the same circles as the Nehru-Gandhi family for many years. He had previously worked as Defence Attaché to V. K. Krishna Menon, while the latter was high commissioner to the United Kingdom, and had grown close to the Nehrus during that time. During the time of his trial and sentencing, Jawaharlal Nehru was Prime Minister of India and his sister, Vijayalakshmi Pandit, was governor of Maharashtra state.” (wikipedia)
Eventually Kavas lost the case in appeal, and Supreme Court held that he was guilty of pre-mediated murder. Personally, I think Kavas’ behaviour was as gentlemanly as can be in the circumstances through the entire tragic episode.
Pick any journalist and ask him why should he agree to an answer like “matter is sub judice” and he/ she will probably not know the reason behind this weasel statement. I wonder what sort of training journalists get if they are not able to counter such statements from people they interview? Genuine question, no sarcasm.
The above post is the the best of my knowledge, please feel free to point out errors in fact and inference in comments. No intent to malign anyone, not subject to legal action.
The whole concept of not commenting on matter that are under consideration of a court is redundant ever since the jury system was abolished in India. The jury consisted of ordinary people who were not expe...rts in law and were susceptible to be influenced by different noises coming out of talking heads on TV or public statements given by different parties.
Now that the cases are heard by a learned judge and decided by him/ her only, there is no question of using the "matter is subjudice" to not answer a question. They can use any other excuse to duck questions but not answering because "matter is subjudice" is IMHO about as relevant a reason as "My dog has distemper".
The jury system in India was revoked after the famous case of Kawas Maneckshaw Nanawati vs. State of Maharashtra. KM Maneckshaw was a honourable navy officer who killed his best friend Prem Ahuja as Prem was sleeping with Kawas’ wife and when discovered refused to marry “every woman he slept with”. There was a massive support campaign carried on by almost the entire Parsi community in India, led by the famous RK Karanjia who ran the magazine Blitz. Incidentally, Prem Ahuja’s case was represented by a very young Ram Jethmalani.
Due to the sustained sympathy campaign the jury was influenced to say that Nanavati was not guilty. This made it clear how open the jury was to being influenced by whats happening in the world around them and the jury system was scrapped in India after this case in 1959-1962.
While I am sure this had nothing to do with Kavas’ acquittal I find it interesting to mention that:
“Nanavati had moved in the same circles as the Nehru-Gandhi family for many years. He had previously worked as Defence Attaché to V. K. Krishna Menon, while the latter was high commissioner to the United Kingdom, and had grown close to the Nehrus during that time. During the time of his trial and sentencing, Jawaharlal Nehru was Prime Minister of India and his sister, Vijayalakshmi Pandit, was governor of Maharashtra state.” (wikipedia)
Eventually Kavas lost the case in appeal, and Supreme Court held that he was guilty of pre-mediated murder. Personally, I think Kavas’ behaviour was as gentlemanly as can be in the circumstances through the entire tragic episode.
Pick any journalist and ask him why should he agree to an answer like “matter is sub judice” and he/ she will probably not know the reason behind this weasel statement. I wonder what sort of training journalists get if they are not able to counter such statements from people they interview? Genuine question, no sarcasm.
The above post is the the best of my knowledge, please feel free to point out errors in fact and inference in comments. No intent to malign anyone, not subject to legal action.
No comments:
Post a Comment