June 08, 2010
 

Breaking news: Supreme Court to deliver Bhopal gas disaster judgment in 2084

Yesterday, a local court in Bhopal convicted the 7 accused in the Bhopal gas tragedy case, sent them to jail for 2 years and later gave them bail.

In response to a question at a press briefing on whether there was a formal extradition request for Warren Anderson (the then CEO of Union Carbide), the USA's Department of State said

Well, as you say, Goyal, this tragedy happened 26 years ago, and it was a terrible tragedy, one of the worst industrial accidents in human history, and we certainly hope that the verdict brings some closure to the families of the victims of this tragedy.

But just as we were talking about earlier, last week, we had a strategic dialogue with India. Our countries are closely connected. Our economies are increasingly closely connected. So I certainly would hope that this particular case does not inhibit – or the continuing expansion of economic, cultural, and political ties between our two countries. And I have – we fully expect that this will not be the case.

In other words, we don't give a damn about what you want.

This then presented a wonderful opportunity for the Indian media to go berserk, pointing out 'double standards' by the USA government when it came to the British Petroleum oil spill and the Bhopal gas tragedy.

So, while British Petroleum will be forced to pay up billions of dollars in penalties for the damage caused to the environment & businesses, victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy would get something like Rs. 50,000 each in addition to the pleasure of living with the after-effects of the gas poisoning.

Yet, they're missing a major point.

The US is stalling or denying requests for Warren Anderson's extradition because it wants to protect it's citizen from criminal proceedings in a different jurisdiction.

In contrast, India's governments settled for a compensation of USD 470 million, around 14% of the original claim of USD 3.3 billion. Warren Anderson was let off on bail, and there's no chance he's going to enjoy a holiday at Agra (except in disguise perhaps). It is unknown how many palms (belonging to politicians, investigators, policemen & bureaucrats) were greased.

India's legal system watered down the charges from culpable homicide to criminal negligence. It seems like 'Tort law' is a foreign concept for the Indian judicial system.

It took over a quarter-of-a-century to deliver a verdict, in a local court at that! There's no doubt that both parties will appeal.

I expect that the appeal will reach the Supreme Court by 2050, and a final judgment will be delivered close to midnight on 2 December 2084, commemorating the centenary of the disaster.

When our governments and courts can't protect our citizens, why should we complain if other governments stand up for their citizens, regardless of whether the accused is at fault or not?

Labels: accident, bhopal, farce, india, judgement, legal, supreme court

Posted @ 11:28 PM

Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Add/View 0 comment(s)

April 01, 2009
 

A defence lawyer for Mohd. Ajmal Amir Iman

The trial of Mohammad Ajmal Amir Iman (aka Kasab) could be jeapordized by the Shiv Sena's stupid, unwarranted and illegal protest against Anjali Waghmare, who was appointed by the special court as the defence lawyer.

I quote from section 304 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

304. Legal aid to accused at State expense in certain cases.

304. Legal aid to accused at State expense in certain cases.
(1) Where, in a trial before the Court of Session, the accused is not represented by a pleader, and where it appears to the Court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage a pleader, the Court shall assign a pleader for his defence at the expense of the State.
(2) The High Court may, with the previous approval of the State Government, make rules providing for
(a) the mode of selecting pleaders for defence under subsection (1);
(b) the facilities to be allowed to such pleaders by the Courts;
(c) the fees payable to such pleaders by the Government, and generally, for carrying out the purposes of sub-section (1).
(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that, as from such date as may be specified in the notification, the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply in relation to any class of trials before other Courts in the State as they apply in relation to trials before Courts of Session.

It is fairly obvious here that what the special court did, and what Anjali Waghmare is tasked with doing, are completely compliant with the law. Yet, should we be surprised that the Shiv Sena, which has always broken the law, is at it again?

By opposing the appointment of a defence lawyer, the trial will take even more time, increasing the danger to Mohd. Ajmal Amir Iman's life. I really hope that Anjali Waghmare, or whoever else the court appoints in case she withdraws, doesn't get cowed down by these goondas. If the accused doesn't get a lawyer, it would give Pakistan a lot of scope to rubbish the trial, wonder about whether a Pakistani citizen will get justice and question India's judicial system. While that'd be very rich coming from a country which has signed away its political & judicial rights over Swat, it would be a fair comment. Now that is the last thing I'd like to see - Pakistan passing judgement over India's judicial system!

At this point in time, Mohd. Ajmal Amir Khan has been charged with various crimes. That doesn't automatically make him guilty. He most certainly has a right to a fair trial, and be represented by a lawyer.

Where was the Shiv Sena when Ram Jethmalani, who had represented Haji Mastan, Indira Gandhi's assassins & Harshad Mehta, was made Law Minister in the NDA government of which they were a part? Jethmalani later represented Manu Sharma, Ketan Parikh, Sanjay Dutt, Jayalalitha, Lalu Prasad Yadav, SAR Geelani, etc. Was he wrong in doing so? Of course not. As a professional, he did the right thing. Did he endanger the country by defending these people? I don't think so. He perhaps enhanced the judicial system's reputation. If his arguments were so convincing and if the prosecution's case was so weak that the accused got away, then why fault him for it?

If the Shiv Sena has a problem with section 304 and does not want it to be applied for trials involving acts of terrorism/war against the state or wants that it should only apply for Indian citizens, it should begin a campaign to change the law or promise that if the NDA came to power, the party would force a change in the law.

That is one of the main problems we have. A lot of people, especially those in power or those wielding power without authority, don't realize that you have to function within the ambit of the law that exists at that point in time. If you disagree with what the law says, work to change it! Don't impose your preferences on others. Drive the change that you want to see!

Labels: legal, mumbai terrorism 200811

Posted @ 1:34 AM

Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Add/View 1 comment(s)