Kolkata Hospital Rape Could Have Been An Open-And-Shut Case

On August 18, the Chief Justice of India, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud had decided to hear the matter taking suo moto cognisance of it. Suo moto is a Latin term that means "on its own motion".

The CJI took cognisance of this matter based on the uproar in the media, both mainstream and social. Our Supreme Court has the power to take up cases on its own initiative, without a petition or interest being filed.

This power is called suo moto and allows the court to address issues of public concern, especially those that involve safety and fundamental rights.

Considering the passions and outrage the Kolkata rape and murder case, the CJI decided to hear it almost immediately and also to broadcast the hearings live on channels such as YouTube. Senior lawyers Kapil Sibal and Menaka Guruswamy were appointed by the State of West Bengal to represent it in the Supreme Court in the R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital matter.

The brutal rape and murder of a trainee doctor on August 9 within the hospital premises, allegedly by a person known to frequent the premises and who was considered as known to the then principal Dr. Sandip Ghosh.

It could have been an open and shut case but typically the state government’s immediate response was ham-handed and gave rise to apprehensions, much of it well fuelled in social media by political adversaries of the state Chief Minister.

It may not have been so, but it did appear that a cover up was underway, particularly considering that the hospital head was posted out and appointed as the head of another well known institution within four hours.

The Calcutta High Court was already seized of the matter and had directed that the case be taken away from the West Bengal police and be investigated by the CBI. The court also admonished the state government for the manner in which it was dealing with the agitating doctors and advised it to “sympathise with the doctors and their agitation, and also to appreciate popular feelings.”

But nevertheless the Supreme Court decided to act saying: “Why we decided to take suo moto though the Calcutta High Court was hearing it because this is not just a case of a horrific murder in Kolkata hospital, but this is about the systemic issue about the safety of doctors across India.” Clearly the SC was concerned about the much larger issue of the security of hospitals and their staff all over India.

We can understand this concern as we read and hear with monotonous frequency about how doctors and nursing staff are belaboured and assaulted when some patients and their families are not satisfied with medical outcomes. The case has aroused passions and typically many people have prejudged the matter.

The drama of the SCI’s hearing broadcast live was further exacerbated by the social media postings of habitual trollers. A popular post lists out the names and photos of 21 lawyers headed by senior counsels Kapil Sibal and Menaka Guruswamy, facing a team headed by the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta with just five lawyers by his side.

The power and the majesty of the Union of India which he represents obviously doesn’t matter? Besides this particular post makes it out that 21 lawyers were appearing against the victim.

The lawyers appearing for the West Bengal government are being trolled for doing their job. These people don’t seem to realise that under our judicial system, described as the adversarial system, the judge is expected to judge on the merits of the case and not general sentiments.

These people don’t seem to realise that under our judicial system, the judge is expected to judge on the merits of the case and not general sentiments.

The adversarial system is a legal system used in the common law countries where two or more advocates represent their parties' case or position before an impartial person or group of people, such as a judge or jury, who attempt to determine the truth and pass judgement accordingly.

It is in contrast to the inquisitorial system used in some civil law systems (i.e. those deriving from Roman law or the Napoleonic code) where a judge investigates the case.

The adversarial system is a two-sided structure under which trial courts operate, pitting the prosecution against the defence. In free and democratic countries like India, the right to counsel is regarded as a constituent of the right to a fair trial.

This right is often included in national constitutions. Of the 194 constitutions currently in force, 153 have language to this effect. The Indian Constitution guarantees the right to counsel.

In fact without both sides being represented by recognised and registered legal counsel the case cannot be conducted. In a case, legal counsel on both sides are considered officers of the court and their intellectual and legal jousting is only to establish the truth based on evidence.

Lawyers are expected to provide counsel without prejudging their clients or pandering to public sentiment. True professionals are not expected to pick and choose sides.

At any given time a lawyer such as [my daughter] Menaka Guruswamy appears for all manner of clients. She appears for the defence and also for the state. When she appeared for a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) connected outfit, I was the recipient of troll attention just as I am now recipient of it because of the Kolkata matter.

My late father in law, whose senior counsel gown my daughter proudly wears, enjoyed a big reputation in the Andhra Pradesh High Court for his judicial acumen and success.

He appeared in some highly publicised cases and when asked about defending the apparently indefensible used to simply reply that it was up to the court to judge, his job was to ensure his client or sometimes the state, gets the best advocacy and the laws of the land are respected.

My late grandfather, who was a famous lawyer of his time in Madras once appeared for the hereditary mahant of the Tirupati temple, who was aggrieved for having been removed by the government for his extravagances and personal habits.

When I asked him about it many years later, he simply replied that he was not defending the mahant’s character but the manner in which he was removed. It was unlawful. The state had to later enact new legislation and got rid of the pernicious system of hereditary mahants.

“The right to fair trial is one of the fundamental guarantees of human rights and rule of law, aimed at ensuring administration of justice. Fair trial includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove innocence.”

Mohan Guruswamy is a reputed political commentator and author of several books. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.