The Fine Art of Judicial Myopia: How Justice Sees What It Chooses

When you think of justice, you might picture Lady Justice, blindfolded and balanced. But in reality, our judiciary often seems to specialize in selective blindness and a curious flexibility that bends the law according to who you are, or more precisely, who you know. 

Let’s start with the case of Vijay Mallya, the flamboyant liquor baron who defrauded Indian banks of thousands of crores. Despite his significant financial crimes, Mallya managed to live comfortably in the UK for years, fighting extradition with every legal maneuver in the book. It’s almost as if the judiciary’s scales decided to tip in his favor, giving him ample time to secure his assets abroad.

Contrast this with the plight of Ravi Kumar, a low-income laborer who spent years in jail awaiting a trial for a petty theft he claims he didn’t commit. His case, mired in delays and bureaucratic red tape, illustrates the swift and merciless arm of justice that seems to target those without means to navigate the legal labyrinth.

Then there's Subrata Roy of Sahara India, who faced a massive financial scandal. Despite his company owing billions to investors, Roy’s legal team expertly navigated a sea of court dates, and he spent years out of jail, thanks to a series of high-profile bail arrangements. Meanwhile, countless ordinary people struggle with endless legal battles for much smaller grievances, their cases often getting lost in the judicial backlog.

 For example,Sanjay Kumar's Fight for Compensation (Bihar): Sanjay Kumar, a farmer from Bihar, fought for 20 years to receive compensation for land acquired by the government for a development project. Despite clear evidence in his favor, the case languished in court due to bureaucratic delays and the lack of legal resources available to him. In contrast, cases involving compensation claims by large corporations often see swifter resolutions.

  And who can forget Sadhvi Pragya Thakur, involved in the 2008 Malegaon blasts? Though out on bail, the case against her has been dragged out with numerous delays. The judiciary’s pace seems to slow considerably when dealing with high-profile or politically sensitive figures, contrasting sharply with the often unforgiving speed for the average citizen. 

 On the contrary, Gulabo Devi's Land Dispute (Uttar Pradesh): Gulabo Devi, a poor widow from a small village in Uttar Pradesh, fought a legal battle over a small piece of land for over 30 years. The case was tied up in lower courts with endless adjournments and technicalities. Despite having all the necessary documents, she couldn’t secure her land due to the slow pace of justice, while influential figures in her village used their clout to delay the proceedings.

 Now, let’s address the judiciary’s curious flexibility with its own schedule. Our courts, supposedly paragons of discipline, have shown a remarkable ability to operate on an extended timeline when it suits certain individuals.  

 Bilkis Bano, a survivor of the 2002 Gujarat riots, saw the release of her rapists in a highly controversial move. The release was timed suspiciously close to electoral benefits for the BJP, suggesting a disturbing intersection of politics and justice. This case highlights how the judiciary can seemingly bend the rules, and its blindfold conveniently lifts when it involves political expediency.  

 In stark contrast, cases involving the poor or marginalized often experience relentless scrutiny and unending delays. For instance, the Arundhati Roy case, involving a writer and activist fighting against displacement of indigenous tribes, took years to move through the courts, revealing a system that seems to have more time for cases involving high-profile figures than for those seeking justice from the grassroots.

 Then there was the case of Lalu Prasad Yadav, the former Chief Minister of Bihar, who was convicted in the Fodder Scam but somehow continued to influence politics from behind bars. The judiciary's extended delays and leniency in his case seemed more like a courtesy call rather than a rigorous application of the law. It’s almost as if the court was giving him extra time to find his way back to the political arena. 

In our nation, where the law is meant to be blind, the judiciary’s ability to selectively see and act based on who’s in the dock is nothing short of a masterclass in double standards. The scales of justice, it seems, are expertly tilted by who wields the power, and the blindfold? Well, it often seems to slip just when it’s most convenient.

It’s fascinating how the pace of justice can slow down considerably when it involves high-profile or politically sensitive figures, compared to the often brisk and unforgiving pace for the average citizen.In a country where the law is supposed to be blind, it seems our judiciary has developed a remarkable ability to see only what it wants to. So, here’s to the art of selective blindness – may it continue to serve the powerful and the privileged with the blindfolded precision that our justice system is famous for.Isn’t it fascinating how the scales of justice can tip so dramatically based on who’s holding them? 

But here’s the silver lining: while our judiciary has its flaws, recognizing these shortcomings is the first step toward meaningful reform. The path to true justice is not easy, but it’s one worth pursuing.

The dedicated efforts of those within the legal community, alongside the persistent demands of citizens for fairness, can drive change.The scales of justice may be tilted today, but with continued commitment to equality and transparency, they can be balanced. Hope keeps the hope alive—and as long as we acknowledge the challenges and strive to overcome them, there’s every reason to believe that justice will, one day, truly be blind to all but the truth.