Abu Asim Azmi: Why we need quick trials for politicians

Twelve years. That’s how long it took to convict Samajwadi Party leader Abu Asim Azmi for making a ‘hate speech’ in Mumbai in year 2000. And it’s not over yet. He plans to challenge the magistrate court’s order in a superior court. He has a right to consider the conviction unfortunate. Several other leaders in the state have made more inflammatory speeches, openly promoted sectarian violence and escaped unscathed. The intention here is not to discuss the merits of the case but to highlight the irony underlying it. In the 12 years, Azmi has increased his political clout and grown bigger and bigger as a politician, becoming a Rajya Sabha member between 2002 and 2008. Had the conviction come earlier, he would not be in Parliament. There would not be others making hate speeches, scared of the consequences. [caption id=“attachment_297505” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Abu Azmi. ibnlive.com”] [/caption] Now let’s link it to the big picture. We have a rant crowd out there calling parliamentarians thieves, murderers and thugs from every available public platform. Yesterday it was yoga guru Baba Ramdev, still earlier there were members of Team Anna foul-mouthing members of the houses. Given the prevailing disenchantment with the political class, such abuses have become almost mandatory in public speeches to draw applause. It’s another matter that such shouting on the streets is downright crude, bordering on the uncouth, and it does not serve any purpose except delivering mild pinpricks to the generally thick-skinned politicians. It is conveniently forgotten that none of the members has been convicted in the criminal cases they are accused of, that they have been elected by people and that if one keeps dumping candidates on the basis of accusations and charge sheets only, there would be few to elect after a point. However, the fact remains that 162 members have serious criminal charges against them. In the state assemblies the number of such members is much higher. If they are criminals they don’t deserve to be there. But who decides whether they are criminals? It certainly cannot be the rant crowd. If it is allowed to conduct kangaroo courts on the streets, the consequences would be disastrous. If the opinion of a thousand noisy ‘reformers’ is allowed to ride roughshod over the judgment of lakhs of people who voted the leaders to represent them, democracy would collapse. It has to be the courts taking a call. If a rather uncomplicated case like Azmi’s takes 12 years to decide then there’s little hope of eliminating the alleged rogues from the system. Many of the parliamentarians have cases pending since years, maybe decades. Between the time the cases were lodged against them till now they have had enough time to leverage their influence to tinker with evidence and make the cases weak. The delays create the opportunity for the guilty to escape the law. Even if he is not completely out of the judicial loop, the delays ensure that they lead perfectly normal lives— such as contest elections and get elected to prestigious representative institutions. Debarring them from contesting elections on the basis of police complaints and charge sheets won’t work. It would lead to a virtual free-for-all among political rivals. In Uttar Pradesh, many of the leaders charged with serious crimes claim they were framed by political rivals. The course their cases take also reflects that political manipulation at work. Why cannot we demand fast-track courts to try the cases of politicians? It would end the unholy ambience of pointless accusations and the presence of criminals in august houses. It is possible quick trials would allow some to escape but that is possible in the present scenario too. Court monitoring of the progress of such cases would help too. Just raising the decibel level on the streets is going to be no help. If the do-gooders are really serious about ridding Parliament of criminals, they should demand quick trial of cases against them and special courts for the purpose. They should offer a solution, not keep overstating the problem.