Justice as Performance

In an era when court proceedings are being livestreamed, it looks like justice is being done to be seen. Not seen to be done, as it should be. This has grave implications for the quality of justice itself

- Saiyyad Mohammad Nizamuddin Pasha

THERE is a growing tendency for oral comments and observations made in the course of court proceedings by judges of our constitutional courts to echo popular sentiments, instead of stemming from any legal principle. This is perhaps a good time to pause and reflect on where we are today, how we got here and where we are heading.

On April 27, 1959, Sylvia Nanavati confessed to her husband, Naval Commander Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, that she was having an affair with businessman Prem Ahuja. Nanavati dropped his wife and children at a cinema theatre and proceeded to his ship, where he obtained a service revolver and six cartridges. He then drove to Ahuja’s house, confronted him and fired three shots at him with his service revolver, killing him instantly. Nanavati then surrendered before the police and admitted to having killed Ahuja. The case gained intense media attention, owing to the dramatic elements of infidelity, honour and revenge that it involved, and public sentiment swung wildly in favour of Nanavati as the wronged husband who avenged an attack on his honour. Upon trial, a nine-member jury returned a verdict of not-guilty by 8:1 and acquitted Nanavati. Finding the verdict to be driven by public sentiment and personal biases of the jurors, rather than legal considerations, the Bombay High Court overturned the verdict and sentenced Nanavati to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision.