Corona and erosion of human values
The Coronavirus is impacting not only the physical health of people but also the mental health, posing innumerable challenges to society. It is testing the strength of human relationships by shaking its very foundations. The manner in which bodies of the victims of the Coronavirus infection are being disposed in various places show us that it is not only important for people to protect themselves but also ensure that humanitarian values that form the bedrock of a civil society are also protected and nurtured.
In a recent incident, it has been reported that the bodies of nine persons who died of the infection were dumped in a pit and their last rites were performed in a ghastly manner by pourakarmikas in Bellary. It is almost as if the dignity and respect accorded to the people of the state were also given a quiet burial along with the dead. After the video of the burial went viral, the district administration tendered an apology and ordered an investigation. But as is the norm, the incident might soon be closed after the pourakarmikas guilty of the act are identified and suspended. If, however, we do not use this incident to introspect how such an inhuman act could occur in our civilized society, such incidents are likely to recur.
Another incident reported from Bangalore revealed the complete lack of sensitivity of the medical world in these times of crisis. An employee of a garment factory who was suffering from acute respiratory problems died on Sunday after struggling for 36 hours and after knocking at the doors of 18 hospitals that refused admission. “I am feeling suffocated, please admit and treat me”, the employee pleaded with the hospitals, but the hospitals refused to heed. Later, the employee and the family made frantic telephone calls to about 20 hospitals, but none of them bothered to respond and the person eventually died. In this incident, there is no clarity about the actual cause of the death, whether it was due to the Coronavirus or respiratory problems. If the person’s Coronavirus test report is negative, then the hospitals must be held responsible for causing the murder of an innocent. If we assume that the person was infected with the Coronavirus, it is still the responsibility of the hospitals to provide primary medical aid, treat the patient, conduct the Coronavirus test, and continue treatment. But who can punish these hospitals who do not attach any value to a human life?
A report published recently indicated that the state of tuberculosis in India is worse than the Coronavirus. Also, in the rainy season, diseases such as dengue and malaria take away many lives every year. Due to the Coronavirus, though, a situation is created where medicines for dengue and malaria are not available. Doctors are viewing the Corona-infected as some strange beings to be kept at bay. People visiting hospitals for fever, cough, cold, asthma, headache or other regular, seasonal illnesses are being sent back and asked to return after getting themselves tested for the Coronavirus. In the absence of medicines or immediate treatment, these illnesses are getting aggravated and people are being pushed towards death. This raises an important question about the need for individuals suffering from regular illnesses to be forced to subject themselves to the expensive Coronavirus test.
The health care system in India is in a pathetic condition. The recent lockdown has pushed people towards economic bankruptcy. In such a situation, what is the need to impose an unwritten rule that people suffering from regular illnesses should also test themselves for the Coronavirus? It is being alleged that mega hospitals are making money out of the Coronavirus. People are enraged that they are being subjected to Coronavirus tests unnecessarily and medicines are being denied if they are not willing to go through the test.
The double standards of public authorities can be seen in the way the number of people dying of the Coronavirus is being made public while at the same time, the number of people dying due to other illnesses after being denied treatment in hospitals is being covered up. If some hospitals are using the Coronavirus pandemic to make money, other hospitals are treating other patients as untouchables. If this is the attitude of the medical fraternity, it is not surprising that the common man has wrong notions about handling dead bodies or performing funeral rites of the Corona-infected people. First, hospitals and district administrations should become sensitive towards the infected people and those who have died due to the virus. Only then can we expect the common man to reflect the same values.
Recently, in Mangaluru, a few mischievous elements tried to create a controversy over the participation of an MLA in the funeral of a Corona-infected person, with a section of the media also contributing to it. No one can dispute the fact that social distancing should be maintained from the infected persons, but it does not mean that infected people should be treated inhumanely. The dead too have dignity. Refusing a decent, dignified burial to the infected not only reflects our superstitions but also the fact that humanitarian values are slowly getting eroded. The move of politicians, legislators, ministers, and district administration officials to participate in funerals by taking safety measures conveys an important message to restore confidence in people. Such behavior will not only send out a positive message but also help in allaying unnecessary fears. Only through such proactive measures can we stop inhuman acts such as the one that occurred in Ballary.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
CJI calls for 'unified judicial policy', use of technology to converge practices across courts
Jaisalmer (PTI): Pushing for a "unified judicial policy", Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Saturday said technology can help align standards and practices across courts, creating a "seamless experience" for citizens, regardless of their location.
He said high courts -- due to the federal structure -- have had their own practices and technological capacities, and "regional barriers" can be broken down with technology to create a more unified judicial ecosystem.
Delivering the keynote address at the West Zone Regional Conference in Jaisalmer, Kant proposed the idea of a "national judicial ecosystem" and called for an overhaul of India's judicial system with the integration of technology.
"Today, as technology reduces geographical barriers and enables convergence, it invites us to think of justice not as regional systems operating in parallel, but as one national ecosystem with shared standards, seamless interfaces, and coordinated goals," he said.
He emphasised how the role of technology in the judiciary has evolved over time.
"Technology is no longer merely an administrative convenience. It has evolved into a constitutional instrument that strengthens equality before the law, expands access to justice, and enhances institutional efficiency," he said, highlighting how digital tools can bridge gaps in the judicial system.
Kant pointed out that technology enables the judiciary to overcome the limitations of physical distance and bureaucratic hurdles.
"It allows the judiciary to transcend physical barriers and bureaucratic rigidities to deliver outcomes that are timely, transparent and principled," he said, adding that the effective use of technology can modernise the delivery of justice and make it more accessible to citizens across the country.
The CJI called for implementing a "unified judicial policy".
He said India's judicial system has long been shaped by its federal structure, and different high courts have their own practices and technological capacities.
"India's vast diversity has led to different high courts evolving their own practices, administrative priorities and technological capacities. This variation, though natural in a federal democracy, has resulted in uneven experiences for litigants across the country," he said.
Kant underscored that predictability is crucial for building trust in the judicial system.
"A core expectation citizens place upon the courts is predictability," he said, adding that citizens should not only expect fair treatment but also consistency in how cases are handled across the country.
He pointed to the potential of technology in improving predictability.
"Technology enables us to track systemic delays and make problems visible rather than concealed," he said.
By identifying areas where delays occur, such as in bail matters or cases involving certain types of disputes, courts can take targeted action to address these issues and improve efficiency, Kant said.
The CJI explained that data-driven tools could identify the reasons behind delays or bottlenecks, allowing for faster, more focused solutions.
"Technology enables prioritisation by flagging sensitive case categories, monitoring pendency in real time and ensuring transparent listing protocols," he said.
Justice Surya Kant also discussed the importance of prioritising urgent cases where delays could result in significant harm. He highlighted his recent administrative order that ensures urgent cases, such as bail petitions or habeas corpus cases, are listed within two days of curing defects.
"Where delay causes deep harm, the system must respond with urgency," he stated, explaining that technology can help courts identify and expedite such cases.
Kant also raised the issue of the clarity of judicial decisions.
He noted that many litigants, despite winning cases, often struggle to understand the terms of their judgment due to complex legal language.
"Although the orders had gone in their favour, they remained unsure of what relief they had actually secured because the language was too technical, vague or evasive to understand," he said.
He advocated for more uniformity in how judgments are written.
"A unified judicial approach must therefore extend to how we communicate outcomes," he said.
The CJI also discussed the role of AI and digital tools in improving case management. He pointed to the potential of AI-based research assistants and digital case management systems to streamline judicial processes.
"Emerging technological tools are now capable of performing once-unthinkable functions. They can highlight missing precedent references, cluster similar legal questions, and simplify factual narration," he said, explaining how these technologies can help judges make more consistent decisions.
He also highlighted tools like the National Judicial Data Grid and e-courts, which are already helping to standardise processes like case filings and tracking.
Kant reiterated that the integration of technology into the judicial process is not just about improving efficiency but about upholding the integrity of the system and strengthening public trust.
"The measure of innovation is not the complexity of the software we deploy, but the simplicity with which a citizen understands the outcome of their case and believes that justice has been served," he said.
