An array of cases have raised strong questions about on the rule of law in our democracy. The rule of law is the bedrock of all liberties, an unamendable basic feature of our Constitution. John Finnis, professor of law and legal philosophy at Oxford University, describes the rule of law as “the name commonly given to the state of affairs in which a legal system is legally in good shape”. Our legal system is, plainly speaking, in an appalling shape.

The Jessica Lall verdict was, for us lawyers, an unsurprising product of a dysfunctional criminal justice system. The constitutional guarantees of life and liberties include the right to a “fair trial”. A delayed trial is not a fair trial — neither to the victims and their relatives waiting endlessly for justice, nor to the accused who languish in overcrowded jails.

A system in which there are over three million cases pending in high courts and over 20 million in trial courts can be fairly described as having collapsed. Successive governments have done virtually nothing to address the causes: lack of judge strength and lack of infrastructure. The political system no longer appears to be on the same side — of late there is visible antipathy towards the rule of law and courts — except where it can be used to embarrass political rivals.

This attitude is prompted, at least in some measure, by increasing criminalisation of politics, and by the perception that the courts are a let and a hindrance in achieving populist measures (for instance, reservations) or using populist tactics (like strikes and bandhs).

... contd.