Parmanand Pandey
Supreme
Court Judge S Abdul Nazeer must be complimented for having spoken his mind
about throwing the colonial legal system by adopting ancient Indian
jurisprudence. We have seen that most of our lawyers and the judges are
so obsessed with the western legal system that they even refuse to see that it
is full of flaws, and no one can expect to get real justice. A journalist
friend of mine, who can legitimately be called a veteran, says that the present
judicial system, which we have borrowed from colonial rulers clearly favours
the rich and moneyed people. It also ingrains the idea of sycophancy and
subservience. He says that such is the state of affairs of justice in our
country that frequent use of ‘My Lord or Your Ladyship’ is considered to be the
good courtcraft. The limit of the imbecility of the Advocates, particularly of
the so-called Seniors, is seen to be believed. Even if their cases are
dismissed at the threshold, they bow down their head by saying ‘Obliged Your
Lordship/ Ladyship’. In this system, the poor person is not only harassed
but is invariably denied justice. It is because of the existing legal system
that the mountains of cases are found lying in different courts and are piling
up with every passing day. The irony is that neither the judges nor legislators
ever thought of changing the most unsuitable legal system that we have in the
country.
Jurisprudence,
as is known in common parlance, is the grammar of law. It throws light on the
basic ideas and the fundamental principles of law. It provides a guideline to
judges and lawyers in ascertaining the true meaning of the laws passed by
providing the rules of interpretation. Is it not strange that most of the legal
brains of our country are either unaware of or frown upon the legal theories
propounded by Manu, Brihaspati, Yagywalkya, Parashar or Kautilya. We have a
complete philosophy of Nyaya Shastra by Rishi Gautam, which is supplemented by
Vaisheshik Darshan of Rishi Kanad.
Nyaya
encompasses propriety, logic, and method, which are necessary to get to the
bottom of the truth. It emphasises the science of causes (Hetuvidya), the
science of enquiry (Anvikshiki), the science of correct knowledge or
epistemology (Pramanshastra), the science of reasoning, innovation, innovation,
synthesis (Tark-vidya), the science of discussion (Vadartha) and most the
important is the science of uncovering sophism, fraud, fakery, and error
(Phakkika), which has been developed into a shastra. Out of six Pramanas, the
Vaisheshik of Rishi Kanad emphasised more on Pratyaksha (perception), Anuman
(inference) and Prashastapad (syllogism). But these methods are hardly used in
the present dispensation of justice. These methods, reinforced with the
philosophy of Mimansha, can be immensely useful for easy, accessible, and
cost-effective (cheap) justice to all. Unfortunately, these nuggets of justice
have been given Cinderella’s treatment by our present judicial dispensation.
Some
of our so-called legal luminaries have given undue importance to Naturalists
like Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Finnis, or Legal Positivists Like, John
Hobbes, Bentham, Austin, HLA Hart or other Utilitarian thinkers like J S Mill
and John Rawls. Dependence on the Colonial system is the main cause of
judicial poverty and misery in our country. At a time when the present judicial
system is fast collapsing and the use of Artificial Intelligence has become
inevitable, there is an urgent need to think over our ancient
jurisprudence.
No comments:
Post a Comment