The Aarushi Talwar Murder Case: Whither Justice?

“Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible.” Janet Malcom’s truculent opening sentence in The Journalist and The Murderer, her seminal work in which she delves into “the psychopathology of journalism” inevitably haunts one while writing about the Aarushi Talwar murder trial. Because, since 16 May 2008 (the day after her murder) there has been an avalanche of speculation all over the media, which continues unabated to this day when the special CBI Court convicted her parents of murder and destruction of evidence. The Court’s order is yet to be made available in the public domain, but from the media reports streaming in, it is reliably learnt that circumstantial evidence has been the basis of conviction.

 

At this juncture an evaluation of the court order shall be an exercise not only in futility and unmitigated vexation too. Over five years and a half, the public has been treated to such a dizzyingly befuddling spectacle of conspiracy theories, insinuations, display of cavalier approach by the investigative agency that “justice” as per law remains, perhaps, a residue which everybody would like to consciously shun. One can only think of “beyond reasonable doubt” which remains the sole basis of conviction and wonder aloud- what really did happen in this particular case?

 

While this question remains open because the Talwars shall be going on appeal, and there is already a humungous amount of mediatised claims and counterclaims, it becomes imperative to notice and critique three “phenomena” which have marked this case from day one.

 

Foremost among them is the lynching by the media. It has been a prolonged open season- for reporters, columnists and politicians to indulge in every conceivable form of theorising, moralising, feeding voyeurism, and even calumny. It begs the question- how far should the media go as “crusaders for justice”? Does the zealous execution of this self-appointed role always yield positive results as in the Jessica Lal case, or does it, more often than not bring about a travesty of justice? It forces us to ponder if this is not “yellow justice”, as William Forrest had asked way back in 1892.

 

Second, is the role of the police and investigative agency- the CBI, no less. Noida IGP Gurdarshan Singh’s proclamation in a press conference of the “honour killing theory”- that Aarushi was killed by her parents when they caught her in a compromising position with the servant Hemraj, was only the tip of the iceberg. As more and more details of the forensic evidence were dug out and splashed all over the media- how dilated was her vagina, or the whitish discharge found therein, the speculation got only more lurid. Mind you, this proclamation was made the day after the murder came to light, obviously without even a semblance of investigation. It has become routine for our police to announce guilt in press conferences?

 

More galling was the unedifying spectacle of the police’s negligence in not making even an iota of effort to seal off the crime scene. A bevy of mediapersons, hordes of curious onlookers and inquisitive busybodies stomped around the place with gay abandon, thereby ensuring that there remained almost zero evidence which would stand up to judicial scrutiny. The CBI conducted two investigations, the results of which were mutually contradictory, and had even submitted a closure report. It was only at the prodding of the CBI court that the case went for trial.

 

Before one starts to lavish praise on the judiciary for being the last bastion of justice, one needs to pause and examine the third phenomena- the influence of this media trial on the courts. In the US, considerable research is being done on the CSI Effect. researchers are trying to determine the nature and extent of television shows such as Crime Scene Investigation (that’s where it derives its name from) and media coverage of violent crimes on the juries’ and judges’ decision-making process. While no conclusive answer has been found, the findings do not permit one to discount the theory either.

 

Going by how the Supreme Court has gone in the present case- castigating the Talwars for adopting dilatory tactics, or disallowing the examination of more witnesses (it is a criminal trial, no less and every accused has to be allowed the fullest extent to defend himself. Even in the 26/11 attacks case, the Court had not clamped down on the defence’s right to examine as many witnesses as it wanted to.), one cannot help wondering if complete justice has indeed been delivered.

 

In the days to come, there shall undoubtedly be a rehash of the entire spectacle by journalists believing themselves to be the “connoisseurs of certainty” (Janet Malcom, again.) and a battery of “legal experts” proffering opinions a dime a dozen . But unless these phenomena are put to robust scrutiny, justice, in the short as well as the long run, shall remain a mirage.