There is an interesting saying in law "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done". Nothing can be
far from the truth in our courts. And I speak of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
One of the most cardinal
rules of our judicial system is that the court proceedings are open to general
public, in essence its public hearing. This is as important as the actual
application of rule of law.
However, what does this really mean. Does it mean
that the Courts are open for all to come and see. Or that the 'procedure'
of judicial system should be so simple or may be uncomplicated, that the common
man can actually 'dare' to exercise the option of going to court
I think it is both. For
instance delays, procedural labyrinth etc. all indicate as to how the 'justice
is not seen to be done'.
My point of discussion however the former. The
accessibility of the public to actually step inside a court and witness a
proceeding without being shunted away or questioned.
This is precisely what the two major courts of India are
doing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi. This thought came into my mind when a young boy said he wanted
to see what the Supreme Court looked liked from inside. I told him that it was
difficult to actually take him inside without his matter being there. I
had to explain to him that a pass is made by the court wherein one has to
disclose the matter listed and possibly attest the form from his advocate.
His response was so I cannot just walk in to see the supreme court of the
land. And it is this comment of his that got me thinking. Why
should he not be entitled to see the court? Is the court bigger than him? And
mind you I am not talking of the law, I am talking of the court as a physical
structure. Is the very entity that is there to protect the person or for
his/her benefit so inaccessible that he/she is forced to question it. The
processes followed in these courts are not exactly recording of visitors data.
It is more than that. Effectively
it requires one to give a reason to be in the court. And I wonder why.
Security? Well the courts have elaborate if not effective security systems
in place. Then why should a person be prohibited.
Snobbery? One thing becomes certain. By the
simple act of making it inaccessible to the public, the officers of the court
seem to have a granted themselves a powerful tool. It may not be much but it
certainly adds up in snobbery value.
