There are always two sides of a coin. And we can only see one side at a time. Which may make us think that there is only one side existant. When it comes to establishing law and order, we have got the justice system, which looks at both sides of the coin. At least in priniciple it should. So if someone kills someone else, it tries to see the reason behind the killing, whether it was premeditated or hot headed, etc. The whole point of this is that it is not objective, like in some countries, where there are rules like, cut the hands of the thief etc.
Even if we assume that the principle of presuming the accused as innocent until otherwise proven is for once forgotthen. Even if the accused is guilty, he/she deserves the right to have the best advocate. Now comes the question, is our justice system dependent upon the advocate’s competency? The probability is high that the prosecuting and the defending advocates would never be eqaully competent. One would always be better. The fight is biased from the start. As it does matter who has the better advocate on his side. So if people think that since Mr. Jethmalani is a great advocate, Manu will be acquitted, they are in fact admitting a flaw in our justice department.
you are right man. we have all the rules in place and they are quite fair too compared to what goes on in other countries (credit should go to ambedkar). but implementation rests heavily on the arbitrary moods or pressures or what is euphemistically called ‘political will’. but there is hope always and the political bosses cannot get away with anything all the time because of democracy.
kaa tera sify broadband backfoot pe hai. case haar gaye consumer court mein. if u have any complaints toh yahi time hai unko daraaneka.