Why doubts persist about impartiality and independence of justice system of India

By Harasankar Adhikari 

The lower court verdict regarding the brutal rape and murder of a trainee postgraduate lady doctor from R.G. Kar Hospital, Kolkata, unfortunately, indicates that the overall justice system is a significant procedural hazard and failure. It reveals how the domination of a political party is often linked to tampering with evidence, including threats to the judiciary. Denying or delaying justice has become a common practice.

This incident was so tragic and heartbreaking that the global community expressed outrage and demanded justice with the slogan—“We want justice.” However, people are becoming increasingly disillusioned and distrustful of the judiciary because the verdict fell short of their expectations. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the legal process has not concluded and that justice will ultimately prevail. However, doubts persist about the impartiality and independence of the justice system.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, justice means “fairness in the way people are dealt with.” Similarly, the Oxford English Dictionary defines justice as “the maintenance of what is just or right by the exercise of authority or power; the assignment of deserved reward or punishment; the giving of due deserts.” John Rawls (1971), in his Theory of Justice, stated: “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions.” Justice is a moral or normative concept, where “just” is morally good, and “unjust” is morally bad.

Morton Deutsch (2000) argued that providing a complete and adequate definition of justice is challenging. In many cases, serious injustice is recognized in various forms, including violations of distributive justice, procedural justice, and human rights. The justice system follows a lengthy and complex procedure, and in many cases, judgments are flawed due to procedural injustice. Thrasymachus defined justice as “nothing other than the advantage of the stronger,” “obeying the laws of the ruler(s),” and “primarily benefiting those in power rather than the general public.” He further argued: “Injustice, when it emerges on a sufficient scale, is mightier, freer, and more masterful than justice. The just serves the advantage of the stronger, while the unjust serves personal profit and self-interest.”

India’s justice system reflects the views of Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay (1838–1894), the renowned Bengali novelist, poet, journalist, and essayist. He believed that “the justice system was unfair and biased towards the rich.” According to him: “The judiciary system is a circus played by the rich.” Shib Nath Shastri (1847–1919), a contemporary of Bankim Chandra, wrote in his memoirs (in Bengali): “In those days, anyone involved in the administration of justice amassed enviable fortunes through bribes, corruption, perjury, forgery, manipulation, and deception, becoming wealthy in the shortest possible time.”

Has this system changed in independent India? Several court verdicts suggest that the system remains as flawed as before. True justice requires a humanitarian approach, where “a good trial judge must have a third ear—not only to hear what is said but also to comprehend what is left unsaid.” Otherwise, as the saying goes: “The word of judgment cries in silence.”