Let the Trial Begin

Where was I?

Greetings to my dear readers, After long three years finally I convinced myself to sit and write something up. Since three years have lapsed and there has been a lot of changes that have taken place in my life since then. When I was writing blogs previously, I was pursuing my under graduation from Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi about which I never miss a moment to brag about. So many things happened since then that I will surely write a separate blog about it.

But for now, let me tell my dear readers that currently I am pursuing the second year of my LL.B from Law Centre II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi and yes I am about to become a lawyer in a few months. Sounds interesting, isn't it? Anyway, let's start with the blog and yes it is gonna be an interesting blog because here I will be writing about two things among which one is a book which I recently finished reading and a movie that I recently watched on Netflix.

Co-incidence

Since I am a law student now, I am always curious about the history based on law and extremely crucial developments which have taken place in our history, be it modern, medieval, or ancient. But here I happen to come across a book which is written by one of the most prominent lawyer in India and it's about a case in which his father fought and was a stalwart figure in the lawyer's circuit and at the same time I also happened to watch a movie which is based on a popular trial in the United States of America.

 In the book which I am talking about, the father of the author fought that case against the state or if we are to go more accurately, he fought that case against the former Prime Minister of India Smt. Indira Gandhi. And the most interesting takeaway, which might make my readers curious is that case unseated Smt. Indira Gandhi from her constituency and declared her election as invalid because of corrupt practices committed by her during her election campaign. In my opinion, It won't be incorrect to say that the father of the author Mr. Shanti Bhushan was a man responsible for enraging Smt. Indira Gandhi to the extent that she ended up in declaring emergency. The case first went to Allahabad High Court which declared the election of Smt. Indira Gandhi as unconstitutional and then it went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which not only dealt with the merits of the case but also with the constitutionality of the 39th amendment, which retrospectively modified the Representation of People Act, 1951 for plugging all the loopholes due to which her election was declared invalid. The name of the book is "The Case That Shook India" by Mr. Prashant Bhushan. One of the very intresting episode in this book is the trial of Smt. Indira Gandhi which took place in Allahabad High Court. It was for the very first time in the independent history of India that Prime Minister was summoned to the court for the cross examination. 

On the other hand, I decided to watch a movie about which I got to know from an Instagram reel named as "The Trial of the Chicago 7" and one of the main reasons I was attracted to that movie is one of my favorite actors Mr. Sacha Baron Cohen playing a role of Abbie Hoffman, who was one of the accused in the actual trial. The movie is available on Netflix and let me tell my readers that the movie is based on the true events which took place during the late 1960s and '70s. Where certain groups and individuals were protesting against the Vietnam War and the role of the United States in the Vietnam War and that protest ended up turning into riot or mob violence for which eight original defendants were prosecuted by the Government of the United States before the District Court of Texas and the presiding judge before whom the trial took place was Mr. Julius Hoffman. There are several key moments in this movie like former Attorney General giving his consent to testify as defense witness for this trial and how the judge showed biasedness for such a star witness and the final closing statement by Tom Hayden who was one of the defendants when he was given an opportunity to say something before pronouncing the sentence which is to be brief, respectful and remorseful and was told that he would be looked upon favorably at the time of sentencing and after that something happened which no one could ever expect, he read the names of 4,752 U.S. Soldiers who died in the Vietnam War and whole court stood in respect including the prosecutor and this enraged the judge.

What's common?

I find both of them quite common in principles as both of these cases shaped the legal histories of both the countries and they reminds of the injustice and role of courts in delivering the right justice, upon which the citizens put ultimate faith. Therefore it becomes imperative to learn lessons from these cases and how such cases can shape our future. I will delve into both the cases in short and will bring the attention of my readers about their significance. 

Case That Shook India - Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain 

Image credits: lawlex.org

In this case, the political opponent of Smt. Indira Gandhi lost election during 1971 general elections. Mr. Raj Narain (political opponent) of Smt. Indira Gandhi filed an election before Allahabad High Court citing the unfair and illegal activities by Smt. Indira Gandhi for the purpose of winning the elections which is against the provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951. Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of Allahabad High Court found Smt. Indira Gandhi guilty of malpractices during her election campaign. Later an appeal was presented before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the judgment and meanwhile emergency was declared because of the political pressure on the Prime Minister for the resignation in the light of the Allahabad High Court judgement. This case was mainly fought by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, in which he represented Mr. Raj Narain before the courts as the petitioner. The way he presented the arguments before the court are treat to a law student. One of the stalwart lawyer of this country at that time Mr. Palkhivala was represented Smt. Indira Gandhi before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but he later withdrew from the case in protest when the Prime Minister declared emergency. Also the government in power introduced 39th constitutional amendment which validated the election of Smt. Indira Gandhi and it was enforced retrospectively hence plugging all the loopholes or grounds on which her election was declared invalid. If one reads the book, they will be thrilled to read about:

• Under what circumstances Justice Sinha wrote and pronounced the judgment.
• Cross-examination of Smt. Indira Gandhi.
• Role of Yashpal Kapoor and his cross-examination. 
• Introduction of 39th constitutional amendment and it's retrospective effect. 
• Arguments before the Supreme Court on the merits of the case and on the 39th constitutional amendment. 

In the final judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the 5 judge bech delivered verdict in favour of the Prime Minister, over ruling the Allhabad High Court judgement. During the same time another judgement was delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla which is considered as the gravest case for the fundamental rights of the citizens because in this case court suppressed the significance of fundamental rights of the citizens granted by the Constitution of India. This phase of Indian history and of independent judiciary is considered as the most darkest phase. Later, during 1977 general elections, the citizens of India delivered their verdict by ousting Smt. Indira Gandhi and her party and later by 44th constitutional amendment, the unconstitutional elements of 39th constitutional amendment were undone.

The Trial of the Chicago 7 

image credits: Netflix 

As I have already mentioned one of the main reason I watched this movie is my favourite actor playing a role of one of the defendant. But after watching this movie, one is compelled to introspect the fate of justice before the court of law where everyone is equal before the eyes of law. But in this movie there are originally eight defendants and among which one defendant Bobby Seale, who was also the member of Black Panther group did not have a lawyer to represent later declared mistrial, resulting into trial of rest seven defendants. The judge before whom trial takes place Mr. Julius Hoffman was later considered as incompetent judge. Throughout the trial, he left no attempt to express his biases towards the defendants. His disinterest reached to a peak where he could no longer tolerate motions by Bobby Seal, consequently ordering the police to deal with him inside the court and later he was brought before the court tied with the chains and mouth covered by a cloth, so that he could not speak. This chilling incident fumed everybody present in the court and prosecution themselves along with defendant counsel, reached out to the judge condemning such brutal action and requesting him to declare the case against Bobby Seal as mistrial. Buck doesn't stop here. Later, a star witness of the defendants who was the formal Attorney General of United States of America agreed to testify before the court for examination. But the judge refused jury to witness his examination and when he gave some shocking and concrete answers before the court which could made the case of defendants beyond any defeat, the judge refused to record his examination citing there must be some material evidence to prove the statement before the court and also refused that examination to be brought before the jury. The trial went for more than 100 days and later on the day of sentencing, one of the defendant who was Tom Hayden was asked to make a final statement before the court on behalf of all the defendants, which has to be brief, respectful and remorseful and if so, he would be looked upon favourably. Tom Hayden ended up reading the names of more than 4,700 fallen heros in the Vietnam war since the day of trial began and the whole audience stood in respect including the prosecutor which enraged the judge and all the defendants were convicted along with the contempt of court.

Later when case went for an appeal, the United States Justice Department refused to prosecute further resulting into acquittals. 

Conclusion

Both the cases went against the basic principles of natural justice like rule of law, Audi alteram partem (let the other side be heard as well) and ubi jus, ibi remedium (wherever there is right, there is remedy), etc. In both of these cases, the petitioner and defendants had a genuine case and they fought for their rights and yet lost. They both won at the later stage, one by the public support and the other by their unshakeable determination or confidence. Both cases makes us contemplate what if something wrong happens with us, we gather courage to take a stand against it and the only institution on which we can rely on, which can listen to our voice and can do something about it, turn it's back on us. In both the cases, one can see the biggest witnesses one can ever imagine, testifying before the court and are subject to examination. Still of no use. Yet, these cases are mirror to such nightmare and it makes the judicial institution more aware of its role in the society and the principles of the natural justice. 

If you are interested, the book is easily available on online and offline stores and movie can be watched from Netflix. I would appreciate any feedback from my dear readers and I promise to be consistent from now onwards.