Its high time to enact a law...to...

John Grisham's novel "Innocent Man" is the true story of a gross miscarriage of justice that sent Ron Williamson to 'death row' for 11 years, for a murder he did not commit. He was found 'not guilty' after 11 years and released from prison. Who can give back his 11 precious years lost in the prison, suffered due to no fault of his? Where is justice? May be the verdict was given based on several factors. It was probably a genuine mistake, but it turned out to be one man's misfortune. Had there been a rule that all cases (fresh or review) are to be given the final verdict, within a stipulated period, the 11 years in jail could have been avoided.

Let us consider another scenario. There are innumerable number of cases pending before various courts, waiting for final judgement. Someone really guilty goes on living his cushy life, untouched by law, for the rest of his life. It is not at all fair, considering the victim (it could be an individual or a firm or society at large). We practically see many people, who have usurped millions through robbery, bribery, nepotism, corruption etc., living their luxurious lives at the expense of the victims.

The 'stipulated period' should be decided by the 'law-makers', in consultation with judiciary and getting the honest opinion of the people. There would be a lot of limiting factors in deciding the stipulated period, like, existing number of courts, other infrastructure, inadequate number of judges, support staff, etc. Besides, there could be other considerations as well like, giving enough time for certain processes to be completed in the course of the hearing and passing of the judgement. Even the litigant and defendant have to be given proper time for safeguarding their sides, with adequate preparation. But the ultimate aim should be to deliver the judgement within the 'stipulated period'.

In my humble opinion, the period for pronouncing the verdict should not exceed one year, (from the commitment of the crime) at the most. There could be a slight extension in special cases but that also should be within practical limits.

A lot of discussion is doing the rounds of late, about whether people with pending court cases should be allowed to contest in elections. If it is decided that they should not, then there is a hitch. Suppose I do not want someone (my nemesis) to contest the election, I can file a court case and prolong it till the elections are held, which will prevent that 'someone' from contesting as a candidate. That will be really unfair.  But if the parliament enacts a law that any case should be disposed off (with a final verdict) within, say, one year, then there will be ample chances of fair elections. In that case convicts could be barred from contesting the elections (by enacting another law).

If this is done by any government bold enough to do it, it will be great for the country. This will prevent many wrong-doers to think twice (or more) before committing a crime. These days it is very common for people to commit gross crimes of huge magnitude and go scot - free, as they know that the court cases can be prolonged as long as they want.

Justice delayed is justice denied!