Is this is rule of law? or Abuse the procedure of law or both
Atik Ahmed had a long stint in politics and with the criminal world. He was accused in a murder case in 1979 and went on to win his first election as an independent candidate in 1989. He won the seat for two consecutive terms and his fourth win came as a lawmaker from the regional Samajwadi party (SP). In 2004, he won a seat in the federal election as an SP candidate and became an MP. Meanwhile, cases continued to be filed against him in Allahabad and other parts of the state.
Ahmed’s assassination has brought to light the dark era of the judicial system and Indian democracy. The incident raises serious questions about the rule of law and the abuse of the legal process in India. The assassination of a convicted criminal, regardless of the severity of his crimes, cannot be justified.
However, what has shocked the nation is the manner in which Ahmed and his brother were assassinated. Video footage showed the two brothers, both in handcuffs, speaking to journalists on the way to a medical check-up at a hospital seconds before they were both shot. The three suspected assailants had arrived on motorcycles, and a policeman and a journalist were also injured at the scene.
The experts’ questions about how a man could be killed in front of the media and police suggest concerns about the adequacy of the security measures in place to protect a high-profile prisoner like Atiq Ahmed. Despite being under police escort, Ahmed and his brother were still able to be attacked and killed by gunmen who were posing as journalists. This raises serious questions about the safety and security measures in place for such individuals, especially given the high level of risk associated with their criminal activities and legal proceedings against them. The incident also highlights the need for a thorough investigation to determine any lapses in the security arrangements and to hold those responsible accountable for any negligence or wrongdoing.
Even if a person is a criminal, they are still entitled to due process and the protection of the law. Assassination or extrajudicial killing of a criminal is a violation of their human rights and undermines the principles of justice and the rule of law.
It is important to note that the assassination of any individual, whether they are a criminal or not, is a serious crime and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. The rule of law requires that all individuals be subject to the same laws and regulations, and that justice be delivered through proper legal channels.
In cases where a criminal is killed, the circumstances surrounding their death must be investigated to ensure that the use of force was necessary and proportionate, and that human rights were not violated. Any person or authority responsible for an extrajudicial killing can be held accountable under the law.
The proper way to deal with a criminal is through the legal system, which provides for fair trials and due process. If a person is suspected of a crime, they should be arrested, charged, and brought before a court of law. If found guilty, they should be punished according to the law.
“Those people who are really happy with this incident might not know, that if the convicted accused is under the judicial custody and have to be punished by rule of law likewise in the landmark case of Ajmal Kasab, one of the perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, was a landmark case in India’s legal history. The procedure of law followed in this case demonstrated the rule of law in action, with a focus on fairness, justice, and due process. Kasab was arrested and charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. He was given a fair and transparent trial, with a team of lawyers appointed to defend him. The trial was conducted in an open court, with the media and public allowed to attend, ensuring transparency and accountability.
“The two brothers were shot dead at point-blank range by three men posing as journalists in the middle of a media interaction and chanted JAI SHREE RAM… Is this literary Ram Rajya, Ram Rajya me bhi jab mahabali hanuman ji bhi ravan ko khud nhi mara jo ki wo ek funk me bhi puri lanka aur lanka ke raja ko samapt kr sakte then fir bhi nahi mara , Wahin Sita maiya jo janti thin ki Mahabali Hanuman ji ravan ko khatam kar sakte hain aur unko lanka se sahi salamat unke swami ke pass le jaa sakte hain fir bhi sita maiya ne hanuman ji se kahan ki mere prabhu ko bolna vaidahi intezar kar rahi hai ki mere swami aayen aur is dust ravan ko maar kar ke mujhe le chalen, dusri or Shree Ram ko bhi pura vishwas tha ki hanuman jaisa bhakt sirf ek hi hai aur jo kehdun kar jayega, hanuman samarthwan hai ki ravan aur uska pura samrajya palak jhapakte hi khatam kar de fir bhi Shree Ram ne kabhi koi adesh nhi diya hanuman ji ko ki jao aur le aao sita ko aur dhyan rakhan ki lanka aur uska raja ka namo nishan na bache is bramhand me fir bhi Shree Ram ne vidhi ka rasta chuna aur khud se kadi mehnat aur parishram kar ke apne hathon se hi nyay stapit kiya aur aisa nhi hai ki hanuman ji ke alwa aur koi nhi maar sakta tha ek aur tha bali jisne marte waqt yahi kaha shree ram se ki prabhu mujhe bol diya hota main ravan ko apke pairon me laa ke patak deta tab shree ram ne yahi updesh diya tha bali ko ki tum khud ek ravan ho jisne apne hi bhai ki patni ko hathiya rakha hai aur ghamand me chur hai to aisa insan dhram stapit kya karega agar mai tumhr mauka de bhi deta to tumhara ghamad ravan ko marne ke baad aur badh jata aur tum usse bade rakshah ban jate….
Is this a literary Ram Rajya? Even in Ram Rajya, when Mahabali Hanuman did not personally kill Ravana, who could have easily defeated all of Lanka and its king with just a single jump, Sita Mata knew that Mahabali Hanuman could end Ravana and bring her safely to her husband. Yet, Sita Mata asked Hanuman to tell her lord to come and kill this evil Ravana and take her away. On the other hand, Shree Ram also had full faith in Hanuman, his devotee, who he knew would do anything he said. Hanuman had the ability to destroy Ravana and his entire kingdom in the blink of an eye, yet Shree Ram never gave him the order to go and bring Sita back. Instead, Shree Ram chose the path of righteousness and worked hard with his own hands to establish justice. It’s not that only Hanuman had the power to kill Ravana, there was also Bali who, when he was dying, said to Shree Ram that if he had been ordered, he would have brought Ravana to his feet and killed him. Shree Ram gave Bali the same advice and said that he was like Ravana himself, who had taken his own brother’s wife and was filled with pride. What good would such a person do for Dharma? Even if I gave you the chance, your pride would only grow after killing Ravana, and you would become an even bigger demon.
Hanuman was a devoted servant of Lord Rama, and his primary focus was to assist Lord Rama in his quest to rescue his wife Sita from Ravana’s captivity. Hanuman played a crucial role in locating Sita, crossing the ocean to reach Lanka, and gathering information about Ravana’s army and defenses.
While Hanuman was a powerful warrior and had the ability to defeat Ravana, it was not his role to personally punish Ravana. According to Hindu mythology, it was Lord Rama’s duty as a righteous king and defender of Dharma (righteousness) to defeat Ravana and restore order and justice in the world.
Hanuman was a faithful and loyal devotee of Lord Rama, and he fulfilled his role as a messenger, warrior, and supporter of Lord Rama in the battle against Ravana. By assisting Lord Rama in his mission, Hanuman demonstrated his unwavering devotion and dedication to Lord Rama, who was his ultimate master and guide.