The law minister last week asked for suggestions on our new anti-terrorism law, poto. In his intervention during Parliament’s joint session debate on the issue Arun Jaitley scorned opponents of the law for bringing up such irrelevancies as the violence in Gujarat and the future government in Uttar Pradesh when what poto’s architects (i.e. his own ministry) had hoped for were constructive suggestions and ideas. Well, Arun here is one from me: drop the whole idea because until we have a justice system, there really is no point in making new laws.

Like the minister, I was disappointed with the speeches by the law’s opponents but for different reasons. I was hoping one of them would say we had a justice system so flawed
that we are yet to bring to justice those who tried to blow up Mumbai. The bombs killed
more than 200 people and damaged some of the city’s key financial institutions in March 1993. Nearly 10 years on, the case progresses at a pace so imperceptible that an occasional story in the newspapers is the only reminder of justice not done. This bullock-cart pace so emboldens terrorists that they dare to threaten the judge. Last week we read that “designated Judge Pramod Kode, trying the 1993 Bombay serial blasts case, has received threats to his life in two letters asking him to become rehamdil (merciful) while dealing with the accused, official sources said here today”.

When Daniel Pearl’s killers were caught last month, we were reminded of another shameful flaw in our justice system. Omar Sheikh, the man now charged with Pearl’s murder, was in the judicial custody of the Indian government for five years along with his equally evil mentor, Azhar Masood, until our external affairs minister graciously escorted them to Kandahar in exchange for the passengers of IC-814. What kind of criminal justice system keeps dangerous terrorists under trial for so long? What kind of justice system takes 10 years to bring terrorists to justice? Answer in one word: ours.

Next question, can we call such a justice system a justice system at all? Answer in one word: no. We do not need more laws to curb terrorism, we need a justice system that punishes terrorists before we forget what their crimes were. We need a justice system that works and our brilliant, young law minister has been so busy crafting our new anti-terrorism law and defending it on national tv that he has not had time to concentrate on the justice system. So, instead of real change we have just the usual, meaningless tinkering—fast-track courts, permission to use modern postal facilities, improved evidence-recording methods for civil cases. Changes so minuscule that justice continues to be dispensed too slowly to be called justice and from courtrooms so medieval, so Kafkaesque that it is hard to believe in such concepts as the majesty of the law.

It is easy, though, to believe in the absolute power of the pettiest government functionary. Since justice is such an elusive thing, the average Indian faces sentencing without trial if he happens to get on the wrong side of some politician or official. Even without poto, he can be wrongly arrested, wrongly denied bail, have his bank accounts frozen, his property seized and his life destroyed. Of course, he can appeal to the courts for justice but as it takes an average of 10 years, what use are the courts? As the justice system is virtually non-functional, the average Indian official knows that he can get away with theft, bribery and corruption. Not just because justice is so unobtainable, but also because our laws do not provide for punishment of officials who harass innocent citizens. If the law minister ever has to—and God forbid that he should—face an income-tax raid under some future Congress government, he would discover that the officials who come to raid him treat him as guilty till proved innocent. Much like poto really.

Only poto is worse because you can be jailed for a year without any questions being asked. Look what happened last week to jklf leader Yasin Malik. He was arrested under poto because some woman, whose name he need never be told, allegedly confessed to some policemen (confession admissible as evidence under POTO) that she was carrying $100,000 to be delivered to Malik. These days when large amounts of money usually change hands through more modern means, it seems bizarre that this woman should have been carrying so much in a suitcase. It is equally bizarre that Malik should be arrested on the basis of what she said, but under poto we cannot ask any questions, only the government can. A terrifying thought in a country where getting justice already is a terrifying struggle.

The law minister might understand this better if the name of his ministry were changed to justice. We must be the only democratic country in the world without a justice department and that is nearly as scary as POTO.