Sunday, November 02, 2014

SITs on court's order: Idiocy within the courts

In theory, no SIT should be working. The repeated Occurrence of having to form an SIT to investigate matters is a constant reminder to us as to how the Indian System is flawed from the very beginning.
The SIT's are formed to answer to the accusations of two parties , Party "A" (the accused political outfit) making the claims that "accusation on them are a result of political vendetta" , and the Party "B" ( the plaintiff) making the claims that "party in the ruling is in connivance with the guilty and hence it may hamper a fair investigation).
   In India, the solution to such a claim,in recent times, has come as SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM or the SIT. But the flaw of the "mafia" type complete connivance Government and Opposition Political Class continues to infect the SIT too.
  The SIT ,even if working under a court, depend on the members of the parent departments of Government. Their personal interest may still be attached with the Government .
  Secondly, under the claims of secrecy and privacy, the Courts continue to bar the PIL litigants from making access to the PROCESS the SIT may be using. Thus ,the SIT have full chances of suffering in the corruption and provide a botched up reports to the Court to whom they may be reporting. This same report in turn is then made available to the PIL litigant, who then has little chance of seeing the errors and find the points of enquiry from the Courts or the SITs while he may continue to belief to have been wronged.
   The theoretical sense of SIT therefore is that Now the Judge and Accused become merged, leaving very little space for the plaintiff to take further his complain to.
   SIT also make inroads to this high mistaken culture of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM . In as much as the Court are finding the Street Activism as a wrong public behaviour, then so are the case of Judicial Activism and the SIT formation.
  SIT cannot guarantee an unbiased investigation. They simply eliminate away the opportunity from the complainant to accuse neither of the two parties who he may be thinking to be in connivance. This happens because the Court apparently "takes over" the control of Investigations, and then makes itself the prosecutors . Whereas, in truth, the SIT continues to depend on the same faulted the Government employees for the Speciaisation.