THE CONTEXT: Parity in judicial decisions is crucial to ensure the equal application of rules. The recent denial of interim bail to former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, despite a similar grant to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, raises questions about consistency in judicial rulings.
ISSUES:
- Inconsistency in Judicial Decisions: When similar cases are treated differently, there is a potential for perceived inequality in judicial decisions. This is particularly relevant to granting bail to political leaders during election periods.
- Principle of Parity: The principle of parity suggests that cases should be treated alike. Based on this principle, it is argued that Hemant Soren should be entitled to interim bail to campaign for the general election, like the bail granted to Arvind Kejriwal.
- Electoral Democracy and Campaigning: The importance of allowing key political leaders to campaign during elections is emphasized. The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Kejriwal was based on the peculiarities of his case and the surrounding circumstances, underscoring the significance of electoral democracy.
- Legal Requirements for Bail: Point to be noted that any bail order must be given only after hearing the prosecution’s objections. This legal requirement was a factor in the delay of Soren’s bail hearing, as the Court needed to hear from the Enforcement Directorate.
- Differences in Cases and Charges: It is acknowledged that neither of the two cases are exactly comparable. While Kejriwal faces bribery charges related to an excise policy, Soren is accused of money laundering. The differences, like the charges and the evidence against them (approvers’ statements vs. documentary evidence), are significant in determining the merits of their respective cases.
THE WAY FORWARD:
- Standardized Bail Criteria: Implement standardized bail criteria that apply uniformly to all individuals, regardless of their political status. The principle of non-discrimination in judicial decision-making emphasizes that equal treatment does not mean identical treatment but rather fair consideration of differences. The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Arvind Kejriwal was based on the “peculiarities of the person in question and the surrounding circumstances,” which can lead to perceived inconsistencies.
- Timely Judicial Decisions: Ensure that courts deliver timely judgments to prevent delays that can affect the fairness of the judicial process. The delay in the Jharkhand High Court’s decision on Hemant Soren’s petition, which took over two months, highlights the need for timely judicial action to avoid prejudicing the accused’s rights. Delays in judicial decisions can lead to unequal application of the law, as seen in the historical context of the criminal justice system, where the wealthy could manipulate delays to their advantage.
- Transparent Judicial Review: Enhance transparency in judicial review processes to ensure that decisions are based on clear, objective criteria. Judicial bias and the appearance of bias can undermine public confidence in the legal system. The principle that “justice must be seen to be done” is crucial for maintaining trust in judicial decisions. The Supreme Court’s power to interpret laws involves making choices among different possibilities, which should be transparent to avoid perceptions of bias.
- Equal Application of Legal Standards: Apply legal standards equally to all cases, ensuring that political considerations do not influence judicial decisions. Equality in judicial decision-making requires that different treatment must be objective and reasonable, not influenced by political status. Historically, the unequal application of criminal laws has shown that those with influence often receive more favorable treatment, which must be addressed to ensure fairness.
- Independent Judicial Oversight: Establish independent oversight bodies to review and ensure the fairness of judicial decisions, particularly in politically sensitive cases. The need for judicial independence and impartiality is critical, as seen in cases where judges recuse themselves to avoid any appearance of bias. Independent oversight can help ensure decisions based on legal merits rather than political considerations, promoting a fairer judicial process.
THE CONCLUSION:
The contrasting judicial outcomes for Hemant Soren and Arvind Kejriwal highlight the complexities and potential inconsistencies in applying bail laws. As the courts navigate these legal challenges, the impact on electoral fairness and the broader democratic process remains a critical concern. Ensuring a level playing field during elections is essential to uphold the democratic spirit.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy. Comment. 2023
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. Discuss the principle of parity in judicial decisions concerning the cases of Hemant Soren and Arvind Kejriwal. Critically analyze the judiciary’s role in maintaining fairness and equality in such scenarios.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word