शायद अगली तारीख़ पर

कुछ तीस बरस पहले यूँ हुआ,

ग़बन का झूठा इल्ज़ाम लगा। 

खेल था कुछ सफ़ेदपोशों का, 

उसका बेमतलब नाम लगा। 

खो बैठा वो अपना सब-कुछ,

सबकी नज़रों से उतर गया।

न हटेगा  झूठा दाग कभी,

ऐसा उसको अंजाम लगा। 

जो कोर्ट-कचहरी शुरू हुयी,

थामी उसने उम्मीद नयी। 

दस बरस तो यूँ ही गुज़र गए,

ज़िरह तो बस चलती ही गयी। 

हर सुनवाई पे हाज़िर होकर,

करता वो पेश सफ़ाई है। 

शायद अगली तारीख़ पर,

फ़ैसले में लिखी रिहाई है। 

पर बीत गए कुछ और बरस,

वो आज भी एक मुदालय है। 

फ़िर भी जिस से उम्मीद बची,

वो केवल एक न्यायालय है। 

इसलिए उसे परवाह नहीं,

हो कितनी तोहमत की बेड़ियाँ। 

एक फ़ैसले की ज़द्दोजहद में,

उसने है रगड़ी एड़ियां। 

आज भी एक सुनवाई है। 

ज़हन में छिड़ गयी लड़ाई है। 

भीतर से एक आवाज़ उठी,

कि घड़ी अब फ़ैसले कि आयी है। 

ऐसा टूटा कि जुड़ न सका,

जब से हैं शुरू ये सिलसिले। 

शायद इस तारीख़ पर,

अपनी शख़्सियत बेदाग़ मिले। 

COVID-19: Technology at Service of Justice System

Case Name: IN RE: GUIDELINES FOR COURT FUNCTIONING THROUGH VIDEO. CONFERENCING DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC.

Even as the world is going through turbulent situation, the institution of justice delivery system can never afforded to be brought to a halt. It has been rightly remarked by Martin Luther King Jr., 

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".

Hence, the current situation calls for a robust justice delivery system across the world. In this regard, the Supreme Court of India has left no stone unturned to ensure speedy justice delivery to every segment of the society.

Guidelines:

Given that social distancing is the need of the hour to prevent communication of COVID-19, the apex court exercised its power under Article 142 (inherent powers) to balance the public health and justice delivery.

It issued a slew of guidelines to streamline functioning of courts via video conferencing during national lockdown.

These guidelines are:

1. The measures that have been and that shall be taken by this Court and by the High Courts, to reduce the need for the physical presence of all stakeholders within court premises and to secure the functioning of courts in consonance with social distancing guidelines and best public health practices shall be deemed to be lawful.
2. The Supreme Court of India and High Courts have been authorized to adopt measures required to ensure the robust functioning of the judicial system through the use of video conferencing technologies;
3. In light of the peculiarities of the judicial system in every state, every High Court is authorised to determine the modalities which are suitable to the temporary transition to the use of video conferencing technologies;
4. The concerned courts shall maintain a helpline to ensure that any complaint in regard to the quality or audibility of feed shall be communicated during the proceeding or immediately after its conclusion. No grievance can be raised afterwards. 
5. The District Courts in each State shall adopt the mode of Video Conferencing prescribed by the concerned High Court.
6. The Court shall duly notify and make available the facilities for video conferencing for such litigants who do not have the means or access to video conferencing facilities. 
7. Until appropriate rules are framed by the High Courts, video conferencing shall be mainly employed for hearing arguments whether at the trial stage or at the appellate stage. 
• But evidence shall not be recorded without the mutual consent of both the parties by video conferencing. 
• If it is necessary to record evidence in a Court room the presiding officer shall ensure that appropriate distance is maintained between any two individuals in the Court.

Bold Judgment: Conviction of Anand Mohan

This decision will be of utmost importance to the Indian masses. It’s also a thrash on the faces of those who think that India is a country, where money and power decide the future of the justice. As our Supreme Court has rightly upheld the conviction of the former MP, Anand Mohan, I am glad that such a major jolt has been felt by the blind politicians. But still I am not satisfied by the judgment as I think that the decision should not have been much delayed also the culprits must have been granted much harsher punishment - as this cases, in my opinion falls in the rare of rarest cases.

Following is the report from Zee News website:

SC upholds life term to Anand Mohan in murder case 
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a plea by former Lok Sabha MP Anand Mohan against his conviction and life sentence in the 1994 murder of erstwhile Gopalganj Dist Magistrate G Krishnaiah.

A bench of justices A K Patnaik and Madan B Lokur also rejected an appeal by the Bihar government that sought enhancement of Anand Mohan's punishment to death sentence and its appeals against acquittal of all other accused including his wife Lovely Anand in the case.

The cross appeals were filed against the December 2008 verdict of the Patna High Court, which had commuted Anand Mohan's death penalty, awarded by the trial court, to life sentence and had acquitted all others due to lack of evidence. 

Besides Lovely Anand, former state Minister Akhlaq Ahmed, former MLA Arun Kumar, MLA (JD-U) from Lalganj Vijay Kumar Shukla alias Munna Shukla, Shashi Shekhar and Harendra Kumar were acquitted.

Mohan, former MP from Sheohar, was awarded life term under Sections 302 (murder) and 109 (abetment of offence). 

Additional District and Sessions Judge R S Rai had on October 3, 2007 awarded death sentence to Mohan, Ahmed and Arun Kumar and life imprisonment to Lovely Anand, Munna Shukla, Shashi Shekhar and Harendra Kumar. 

Anand Mohan, who was the leader of the then Bihar People's Party (BPP) at the time of the murder, and his wife were accused of inciting a mob to lynch Krishnaiah. The BPP is now defunct. 

Krishnaiah was lynched by a mob accompanying the cortege of a BPP leader Chotan Shukla on December 5, 1994. The officer was pulled out of a car, beaten up mercilessly and then shot dead. 

News Source