When Justice Refuses to Look at Itself
When Justice
Refuses to Look at Itself
There are moments when a case is
no longer about the accused. It becomes about the system itself. This is one of
those moments.
When a defendant stands in court
and raises concerns about bias supported by records, by visible associations,
by patterns that anyone paying attention can see, the expectation in any fair
system is simple: those concerns must be addressed.
Not ignored. Not dismissed.
Addressed. But what happens when the court refuses to answer those questions?
What happens when the judge, instead of stepping aside to preserve the
credibility of the process, chooses to stay on and continue presiding?
That is not a strength. That is a
warning sign. Because justice does not just depend on being fair, it depends on
being seen as fair. And the moment a judge refuses to even consider recusal in
the face of credible concerns, the system stops protecting its integrity and
starts protecting itself.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s
decision to remain on the case, despite questions being raised about past
conduct and perceived bias, will not be remembered as routine. It will be
remembered as a moment where the system had an opportunity to pause, reflect,
and correct, and chose not to.
And history is rarely kind to
such moments. This is no longer about whether Arvind Kejriwal is guilty or
innocent. In fact, a magistrate has already indicated that the case lacks
substance. Under normal circumstances, that should have been the beginning of
the end.
But here, the case continues. Why?
Because sometimes, the purpose of a case is not resolution. It is a distraction.
While larger issues demand attention, economic strain, governance failures, and
rising tensions, what dominates the narrative? A courtroom battle. A political
figure entangled in legal proceedings. A story that is easy to repeat, easy to
amplify, and difficult to conclude.
And amplification is never
accidental.
Sections of the media, often
criticized as “Godi media,” will ensure that this case remains in the
spotlight. Not necessarily because it matters more, but because it serves a
purpose. It keeps attention focused where it is convenient, not where it is
necessary.
And in that process, something
deeper happens. People begin to accept it. They begin to accept prolonged cases
without resolution. They begin to accept questions without answers. They begin
to accept governance without accountability.
Over time, expectations shrink.
Standards drop. And what once felt unacceptable slowly becomes normal.
This is how systems change, not
through sudden collapse, but through gradual adjustment.
Meanwhile, the larger question
remains untouched. Why is there no equal urgency in questioning those in power?
Why is there no demand for the same level of scrutiny when it comes to Narendra
Modi? Why is there no insistence on open, unscripted engagement with the
public? Why does accountability seem to flow in only one direction?
If allegations exist, they should
be answered. Publicly. Transparently. Without filters.
Dragging one political opponent
through an endless legal loop does not strengthen democracy. It weakens it. It
sends a message that process can be used as pressure, that law can be stretched
beyond fairness, and that outcomes are secondary to optics.
And the cost of that message is
not political. It is societal. Because when people begin to feel that the
system is no longer neutral, they stop believing in it. And once that belief is
gone, restoring it becomes almost impossible. What makes this moment even more
troubling is the attitude it reflects. An unwillingness to be questioned. A
confidence that power will not be challenged. An assumption that perception can
be managed indefinitely.
But perception is not controlled
forever. It builds quietly, across cases, across decisions, across moments like
this, until one day it becomes impossible to ignore.
This is not about outrage. It is
about consequence. Because when justice refuses to examine itself, it does not
remain justice for long. It becomes something else. And by the time a nation
realizes that shift, the damage is already done.
Comments
Post a Comment