The people cannot even complain that they have been robbed. If that is tried the fear is that there will be grave consequences. Corruption is everywhere and all the way. The Mobile Courts with police operation is also causing fear against business friendly atmosphere.
Asked any shop or restaurant owner in Gulshan or Banani where very important people reside and they will say how mobile and open are the Mobile Courts led by magistrates and police in negotiating bribe. They have special places where they will take one from the shop and claim money. They will say bluntly that they do not want to file a case, they want money. Thy do not fear the existence of Anti-Corruption Commission or anybody who can stop them making money. They have police to cooperate. They threaten sealing up the business if not yielded to their demand. They do not care about limitations of their power. The bribe money is certainly shared with the police.
Our criminal justice system is also much abused and much corrupted by flouting fundamental rights of an accused and ignoring Section 167 of Cr PC. It is most despairing that for mere suspicion of a police that one has committed an offence he should be denied his right of liberty and the right to be treated as innocent till found guilty by a court.
Nothing makes one more unhappy than when one sees an accused person’s fundamental rights are not treated as vital for saving him from police kind of justice. The judges as well as the police are aware that the fundamental rights are the supreme law but mostly ignored in criminal proceedings.
In a very recent judgement the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court explained the objective of section 167(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their Lordships presided by Chief Justice SK Sinha observed that the section requires the magistrate to record reasons for sending an accused to police custody. He should take the trouble to study the police diary and ascertain the conditions under which such detention is asked for.
In order to emphasise the importance of individual liberty their Lordships reminded the magistrates that the law is “jealous” of a person’s liberty.
In the said judgement, called Bangladesh vs BLAST, their Lordships held that in every case of detention in police custody the magistrate should satisfy himself (a) that the accusation is well-founded and (b) that the presence of the accused is necessary while the police investigation is being held.
Article 33 of the Constitution is assertive about the obligation that an arrested person shall not be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. Which means nothing and nothing more than an accused cannot be questioned without the presence of his lawyer.
Thus the law speaks of presence of the accused for investigation and not interrogation. But in reality, he is taken into a room cut off from the outside to be interrogated alone. This fact is known to our courts. Keeping the accused alone they can do any thing to him including torture. The incidents of torture, even death in police custody came to the knowledge of the court.
The Supreme Court further elaborated the matter to say that mere claim that he is needed for finishing the investigation is not sufficient.
The fundamental rights as the supreme law deserves supreme consideration by our courts. If our fundamental right to liberty can be so fragile that an FIR forwarded by police is enough to render it useless then we have no judiciary and no Constitution. That is why we have to save the judiciary to save the Constitution and rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Only the judiciary can work for corruption free good governance under the rule of law.
