You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Miscellaneous

    Does law depends on one's own interpretation?

    Courts of law hear the arguments from both sides, examines the documents, and deliver the judgment in a case before it. If one of the parties feels aggrieved, they go to the higher court. We find many cases where the judgment differs from one court to the other. I read about a case where a businessman was arrested and he applied for bail. The court dismissed his bail application saying that he is funding a terror organization. He approached Supreme Court for bail. The Supreme Court granted him bail saying that he was only paying extortion money but not funding the terror organization. The Supreme Court observed that it is the duty of the Court to apply its mind to examine the entire material on record for the purpose of satisfying itself, whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not.

    We find that the High Court and the Supreme Court applied their mind in a different manner and the judgment differed. Had the accused not approached the Supreme Court, he might be in jail until the case is settled. Does it mean that the judgment depends on how the material placed before it is interpreted?
  • #727702
    Different judges can give different verdicts in many cases due to the interpretation of the laws and the real situation behind the crime committed. In our law it is mentioned that no innocent should be punished and for that reason the courts want ample proof of the crime committed. That is the reason the intelligent criminals erase and destroy all the evidences of the crime. In the recent case of Antila explosives in Maharashtra the person caught tried to destroy all the evidence but it was his sheer bad luck that a few of them still remained and NIA got hold of them. Now with passage of time NIA has got some more evidences by checking things in his house and by interacting with the people who were also a party in less or more extent in doing those crimes with him.

    We have district courts, state courts, and supreme court and the purpose of all is to do justice and not to punish the innocent and in doing so sometimes the criminals also escape the punishment. There are cases when a serial killer is nabbed only after killing of so many people but due to his intimacy with some influential people in the Govt and Ministry and jail authorities he gets successful in escaping from the jail and is never to be found anywhere. There are so many lacunae in the legal and judiciary system and that is the reason why there are so many crimes happening as most of the criminals know that nothing is going to happen with them. There had been thousands of rapes in the country but how many of the culprits hanged? A few only.

    Knowledge is power.

  • #727705
    Judges are also a human being. They think like us and do mistakes like us. They are among us but they fulfil the criteria to become judges but there is a big difference between them and us that their interpretation of the law is legally approved and our interpretation has no importance.
    I feel pity for these people who work so hard for a normal salary and perks. Each judge has a huge number of cases to see. Sometimes, It wonders how they manage it.
    Generally, cases settled in the high court and mainly those who have a chunk of money go to the Supreme Court.
    Laws can be interpreted from different angles and judges of the High Court and Supreme Court may have a different interpretation of the same law and their verdict also differs accordingly. Even if the same verdict is reviewed in Supreme Court it is very much possible that the same bench or another bench may give a different verdict in the same case.

  • #727707
    Very nice post raised by the author as the law can be interpreted and imposed on the judgement with much awareness in the lawyers who are arguing the case. What I feel that the defense lawyer should be experienced with many such cases which he countered with the prosecution lawyer and the judge normally tilt towards the defense lawyer as the reality is shown to the judge to avoid the punishment and even one small clue is enough to save the accused. Many accused were wrongly put into the case and the lawyers who are well informed about the case would fight for the justice with their total might.
    K Mohan @ Moga
    'Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum "
    Even this challenging situation would ease

  • #727716
    It is unfortunate to say that the courts of justice have been in the grip of some skepticism for some time. The Judiciary is the foremost and last of the three pillars of constitutional democracy, the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. In cases where the other two pillars (the executive and the legislator) are tilted, it is the intervention of the judiciary that helps to straighten democracy.
    Many judgments come out as if our laws are obsolete. Similarly, there is a doubt as to whether political pressure is a factor in the appointment of judges.

    In a case, both the plaintiff and the defendant make their arguments and plead the court to rule in their favor. It is a fact that when the financially affluent parties bring high experienced lawyers having high fees to argue for them, the verdict leans in their favor. When some reputed advocates argue, it is a fact that many lower court magistrates and judges, who are younger than them and do not have much practice than them, agree with their arguments. Such lawyers often present some older judgments of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Thus, the one who spends more money will get a judgment.

    "Cheruthulli Peruvellam"
    small drops make a mighty ocean

  • #727721
    That is true. Interpretations will be different from person to person. Judges also are human beings. They will think in their own way and based on the facts and the figures that were presented to them they will come out with their own judgement.
    I feel here more than the judges, the lawyer who is representing the case in the court plays an important role. Their logic and their knowledge of old cases and the judgements in those cases will make them make a better presentation of their point to the judge.
    The judgement in the High court will be based on the arguments and witnesses presented by their lawyers in the court. But when the same court goes to the higher court, the lawyers presenting the case there may be different. T
    We all know that the court will hear but can't see.

    always confident

  • #727736
    KVRR, could you please provide the details of the case you are referring to? I don't think the ground you have put forth for the difference in judgement is convincing. I am sure that there is more to it.
    “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • #727737

    I am giving the link here., for your comments

    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #727738
    The businessman was arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act(UAPA). He was paying money to a terrorist organization to allow him to carry on his transport business smoothly. The Jharkhand High Court denied bail observing that he is paying money to a terror organization and was meeting with them from time to time. The businessman then approached the Supreme Court. He was granted bail saying that paying extortion money does not mean funding a terrorist organization.
    The High Court interpreted the money paid as funding the terrorist organization whereas the Supreme Court considered it as extortion money but not funding the terrorist organization.

    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #727759
    The post of the judge is quite prestigious and this post is given to a person only after a long process, it makes sense that the importance of the post is very high because the final decision of a person's life is also on them. When a decision is not made on the basis of law, the judges resort to their interpretation. But it is expected that the judge should interpret the law while maintaining the dignity of his post. A few days ago a very strange decision was delivered by a judge in the city of Indore. A man who had been harassing a woman for a long time was ordered to get tied a rakhi from the same woman as a punishment, which was strongly opposed. Before making such decisions, the judges should think that they are in a prestigious position and there is no joking here, so it is important to maintain seriousness in their decisions.

  • #727776
    The content is misunderstood. When I said, on one's own interpretation, what I mean is that interpretation based on the evidence submitted, arguments, and the legal framework. The judgment is always based on the legal provisions only. The judges cannot interpret with their own logic. As I explained earlier, the money paid to the terror organization is considered to be funding it by the High Court Judge, whereas it was considered as extortion money by the Supreme Court.
    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #727779
    The judges not only consider presented evidence but also how arguments are presented before the court. The judges while reading the file of any case can infer in which direction proceedings should go further but a judge keeps on waiting for evidence regarding the case. In the case mentioned by the author, it might have been proven by the other advocate that the accused was funding but in Supreme Court the advocate of the accused successfully convinced the court that it was extortion money, it was not funding.

  • #727787
    In this case, the term 'funding' has been interpreted differently by the High Court and the Supreme Court. As the author has clarified in his response at #727776, interpretation is always based on the evidence, arguments put forward and finally in adherence to the legal framework. But, the possibility of difference in the way a law or a word is interpreted or the evidence is appreciated cannot be ruled out due to various reasons including the fact that it is being done by humans. And that is why we have provisions for appeal or review etc.

    We need not construe such differences as mistakes because they also fall within the legal framework and are not, in any way, influenced by extraneous conditions. In this particular case, the Supreme Court appreciated the fact that while the other accused persons in the charge-sheet were collecting money from businessmen to gather funds for their terrorist activities, the accused in question was only paying money to them due to fear and for the purpose of running his business smoothly and hence he cannot be equated with the others as his intention was not to find funds for the organisation. Thus he was granted bail. The High Court had taken a different stand considering that payment of extortion money amounts to helping the organisation but, I feel, they failed to look into the difference between the other accused persons and the person in question here. It is quite possible that the matter was not put up properly before the Judges.

    We need to understand that a judge would decide a case based on the material that is brought before him only and he cannot allow himself to be influenced by anything that has not been put up before him irrespective of his personal views, information or knowledge.

    “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • Sign In to post your comments