बेबाक · Editorial
সর্বত্র আহ্বান, কোথাও বিশ্বাসযোগ্য নয়ঃ ভারতের বিচার ব্যবস্থার উপর চাপ
এগারো ঘন্টার জিজ্ঞাসাবাদ থেকে শুরু করে 839 দিনের বিলম্ব এবং কেন্দ্রীয় তদন্তের দাবি, ভারতের জবাবদিহিতা ব্যবস্থা ব্যস্ত-এবং প্রায় কেউই বিশ্বাস করে না।
আ নেশন ইন দ্য ডক
সপ্তাহের শিরোনামগুলি একটি একক কেস ফাইল এবং একটি প্যাটার্ন পৃষ্ঠ হিসাবে পড়ুন। মার্কিন সুপ্রিম কোর্ট টিসিএস-এর আবেদন খারিজ করে দিয়েছে
The Reflex of Distrust
Look closer, and one reflex repeats. The family of slain Raja Raghuvanshi, unconvinced after Sonam was granted bail by a Shillong court in April, wants the case handed to the CBI. Before the Madras High Court, one litigant presses for a CBI inquiry into the circumstances that led four former MLAs to resign, while a whip urges the court to prevent byelections in the four constituencies they vacated. A public figure facing investigation turns to the shelter of a High Court's interim order. The instinct is identical across the spectrum: the ordinary investigator and the first forum are not enough; one must reach past them, for a central agency, a higher court, or the cover of an interim order. When every actor distrusts the first institution it meets, the system is confessing something about itself.
Both Sides Have a Point
Each suspicion holds a truth, and an honest account must state both at full strength. Investigating agencies argue, fairly, that money trails in recruitment scams and disproportionate-assets cases are real, that the powerful should not escape scrutiny, and that an eleven-hour questioning can be the texture of a serious probe rather than harassment. Their critics argue, with equal force, that long delays can blunt accountability, that an 839-day delay merely in challenging an acquittal betrays a system that cannot keep time, and that vigour applied selectively would be its own injustice. The defensible position holds both at once: India needs investigators who pursue the mighty without fear, and who are visibly even-handed about whom they pursue. Without the second, the first reads as power, not law.
The Evidence on the Calendar
Consider the calendar the courts are asked to keep. Before the Madras High Court, Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan has deferred orders on whether to condone a delay of 839 days in a third-party revision against a 2022 acquittal in a disproportionate-assets case that dates to 2002 — more than two decades from the case's origin to a contested challenge. In the same court, the Advocate-General has assured judges that disqualification proceedings against four former MLAs will be carried to their logical end, even as a whip urges that byelections be stayed and another litigant demands a CBI probe into the resignations. When a corruption matter outlives the political careers it concerns, the deterrent evaporates and the law becomes, in effect, advisory.
When the Vacuum Fills
The cost of slow or distrusted justice is not abstract; it spills onto the street. When the June 2 vandalism case at Khan Global Studies is followed, after a bail release, by Bihar-based educator Roshan Anand alleging that Khan Sir conspired to murder Prince Yadav, the law has lost command of the story. When supporters of an assaulted activist in Jaipur catch hold of the accused and assault them before police intervene, the crowd has crowned itself judge. When Chandan allegedly hurls an egg at Kunal Ghosh outside the Chief Minister's residence, spectacle replaces argument. And when Lok Sabha MP Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar writes to Speaker Om Birla seeking Kalyan Banerjee's expulsion over alleged verbal abuse and misogynistic conduct during House proceedings, the chamber meant to model democratic conduct is itself struggling to keep order. Each is a small abdication; together they sketch a republic that increasingly seizes outcomes by hand.
A Calendar and a Firewall
The way back is unglamorous and feasible. Investigations into corruption and serious crime should carry clear timelines, so that an eleven-hour summons is followed within months by a charge or a closure, not years of limbo. Trial courts need fuller capacity and tighter docket management, so that no challenge waits 839 days merely to be considered; priority benches for cases involving public office, with fixed limits for trial and appeal, would reduce the spectacle of a 2002 matter litigated two decades on. Agencies should be insulated by fixed tenures and published rules of case allocation, so that vigour is not mistaken for vendetta. And every reflexive demand for a central probe should be met by making the first investigator competent enough to trust. Justice kept on a calendar, walled off from power, is the only durable reply to the street.
ভারত খুব কম আইন বা খুব বেশি ভোগ করে না, বরং এমন ন্যায়বিচারের শিকার হয় যা ধীর, অসমভাবে প্রয়োগ করা হয় এবং তাই ব্যাপকভাবে অবিশ্বাসী।
At stake is whether equal treatment before law, free political expression, independent election administration and citizens’ voting rights can survive a justice system seen as delayed, selective or forum-shopped.
Justice Timelines and Reasons Bill
Parliament should enact a Justice Timelines and Reasons Bill requiring courts and investigating agencies to publish reasoned, RTI-accessible status notes in cases involving probe transfers, interim protection from coercive action, delayed challenges to acquittals, and pleas affecting byelections. The law should set statutory deadlines for deciding delay-condonation and election-related interim applications, while preserving judicial discretion through written reasons so accountability is faster, even-handed and constitutionally reviewable.
আপনার সাংবিধানিক অধিকার
এই গল্পে সংবিধান কী নিশ্চয়তা দেয়Superintendence, direction and control of elections vests in an independent Election Commission of India.
ConstitutionalEvery citizen aged 18 or above has the right to vote, regardless of wealth, status, gender or education.
ConstitutionalEvery citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression — including a free press and the right to know — subject only to the reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2).
Fundamental RightThe State shall not deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. Like must be treated alike; the law cannot be arbitrary.
Fundamental RightWhat this editorial rests on
Drawn from our live multi-newsroom feed — read the reporting at source.
আন্দোলনে যোগ দিন।
একবারে একটি নির্ভীক সম্পাদকীয়-আপনার ভাষায়। এছাড়াও সাংবিধানিক অনুরোধ অবশ্যই অনুসরণ করতে হবে।
An editorial is the considered opinion of The Mudda desk, argued from the sourced reporting above and written under our published persona, बेबाक. We name institutions and actors; we do not endorse or attack any political party. "The Mudda's Ask" is a citizen's good-faith policy proposal, grounded in the Constitution — not the platform of any party. Translations are faithful — no fact is added in any language. If we are wrong, we will say so. How we work →