Mulling "justice" on the occasion of International Day for justice (17th July)

My daughter asked me; What is justice? 

I resorted to beating about the bush.I just repeated a number of cliches associated with the term "justice" like "justice delayed is justice denied"," justice hurried is justice buried"," justice should not only be done but it must seem to be done" etc.etc.

 But that did not satisfy her.

 She told-all these what you are saying may well be the "desirables" or "doables" in respect of justice but what actually is justice?

 I had no option but to fumble again.Then 

I tried to divert her.

I asked- What occurred in your mind to ask this question all of a sudden?

Nothing special save that it is 17th July which is observed as International Day for Justice-She said. 

It was again a double whammy for me; for I didn't know this fact even. 

I said- Ok.Ok. It is a matter of General Knowledge which for years I have not been in touch with.

Having found myself perplexed at her query she tried to console me. 

Don't worry. I will find the answer on my own by reading a book or two on the topic.

By the way, 17 July is also World Emoji Day- She said in a lighter vein.

 This too I didn't know. 

****************************************************

Though I could not answer her query, I felt ill at ease to find myself unable to answer what actually "justice" is and far more importantly if justice is something seen being done how it looks like.

****************************************************

Now my mind was on a job.

 Hearing the word "justice" what first came to my mind was the statue of a woman holding a balance which is an object of common scenery in places like the court or ones pretending to function as such.

****************************************************

Is justice a noun or verb? Or both?

As a noun, someone who sits in the court to decide a dispute? 

My mind reprimanded me- Stupid!That one is called "Justice" not "justice" and your daughter had asked the latter. 

 Then I thought O yes! justice is not simply a proper noun but it is more "abstract" than "proper".

Then does it refer to something which exists only as an idea or quality? 

My mind recalled someone saying that justice is concerned with ideas and theory rather than with things which really exist or could exist. It only denotes a quality, condition or action rather than a physical thing.

****************************************************

I further gave fodder to my thoughts.

If justice is not seen being done it must at least be felt. My mind further thought that administration of justice in terms of victory or defeat is the worst kind of it. 

The test of justice should be that each, whether a party or not, should feel satisfied by the administration of it.

****************************************************

I have also heard many advocating that criminal justice should cease to be retributive and be given reformative or commutative character. The real challenge is to choose between the two whether on a case to case basis or as a matter of regular practice.

 I also recall a friend of mine said sometimes in the past that Socrates had a conversation with one of his disciples on the topic. His disciple upon being asked what is justice told that justice is giving each one his due. But it is not robbing Paul to pay Peter.

My friend went on to explain that justice is a process rather than an event whose job is to regulate human relations in such a way that it corrects the "wrongs" of the system. These wrongs may be historical, procedural, substantial or incidental to even the very functioning of the system.

If justice is a process then who regulates this process? And by what authority? 

More importantly what is that which is called the "ends of justice"?

 My friend then answered something in terms of People and the State,Constitution,Court of Law etc.etc. But he,by his answer,could not change the character of justice from "abstract" to "concrete"-the one which I hoped to visualise in vain.He then told me that justice is nothing but application of "Rule of Law". I was still not satisfied. To me not only application but formulation of law should also be the concern of justice. Besides, "law" also evolves through delivery of justice.

****************************************************

Though I am still not able to explain "justice", much less define it, I do have common sense to identify the situation or condition that constitutes injustice. At the risk of indulging in circular error I would say that absence of injustice is justice.

***********************************************

* If my belly is full with food and the persons before and around me are not having food to eat, the said situation is unfair to be called the state of justice. It is injustice in the blatantly visible way. No, it will be a crime to eat before them.

***********************************************

* If a system is built more around entitlements & privileges than equality & equity it amlounts to injustice. 

***********************************************

* If lakhs of people are left incarcerated in jails pending trial it is "injustice" systematically perpetuated/perpetrated.

**************************************************

* If only a select few by virtue of their money power can rise the stairs of the court of justice (high court/supreme court) it is injustice to the ones who don't have money to avail the "service" of the pujaris of that temple of justice. (We are aware of the fees hovering in lakhs that most of the lawyers of temples of justice charge.)

***********************************************

* If prosecution and investigation fail to such an extent that all chargesheeted are acquitted after a trial spanning over decades then is it justice to the ones who suffered? 

Instances of such types are not few and far between. 

   But they would take shelter behind the maxim that an innocent person must not stand punished no matter how many guilty people may get the benefit of doubt. 

   Should acquittal be not understood as a failure of the justice delivery system,in serving the cause of justice? At the same time,every acquittal should ordinarily lead to the inference that an innocent person was wrongfully implecated and prosecuted.

***********************************************

* If you are in queue indefinitely you are prey to injustice. In our country itself more than 5 crores are the number of total cases pending before the courts. In supreme court alone the pendency count is one lakh.

According to a TOI report of 2018 it would take 324 years to clear the caseload of 3 crores which was the total figure of that year.  

The problem of pendency has been sought to be tackled by what they call methods of alternative dispute resolution. But it is merely a drop in the ocean.

***********************************************

* If judges sit to pass order to the palate of those in power it is injustice in the name of delivery of justice. 

***********************************************

* Wasting thousands of pages in the form of a palavar of judicial analysis before giving a judgement of practically inconsequential and complex nature is a type of judicial pleonasm.

I remember what Einstein had once said- If you can't explain it simply you have yourself not understood it well enough.

***********************************************

* Passing value judgment keeping in view the sociometric relationship of the lawyer with the judge presiding is injustice.

****************************************************

Thus one may hold, though not without reason, that justice is only for "haves"; not for "havenots". Some believe justice to be a negotiable instruments or commodity. The negotiability is dependent upon a number of factors.

 More formal the system becomes the more exploitative it tends to be. 

In such a view of the fact I am led to conclude that justice is optimising injustices our system is woven around. 

****************************************************

Ideally speaking, justice is the voice of god; the conscience of the self which we knowingly and conveniently ignore. This voice transcends legal jurisprudence and practice meticulously drafted by intelligent human efforts of highest order.

R.R.Prabhakar.

17.07.2022.