Changing face of Indian Justice

Two court decisions in the past week bring to the front the changing face of Indian Justice system.

• One is the ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on petitions by two Muslim personnel of the Indian Air Force seeking permission to grow beards while in uniform.
• Two the ruling given by Supreme court on testimony of rape victims being an evidence in itself amounting to conviction of the accused without requirement on ANY other corroborative evidence including a doctors report.

Both rulings move away from the half a century old Indian Judicial rulings which have had no emotional basis and are based on purely factual knowledge (i dont claim to be an expert but atleast thats what has been in my reading till date based on the rulings in Bombay Bomb blast case, Babri Masjid case and Godhra). I consider the impact of this change as being completely diverse in both cases.

In case 1 the court commented that "growing beards at the most can be stated to be a personal choice and the same is not a compulsive requirement of a person professing Islam. Even if it is presumed to be so, it can be regulated, restricted, if public order, morality and health so requires”. This in my view is a "judgemental" ruling and not factual since the second sentence of the ruling can apply to any religion including Sikhs. I know enough Sikhs who do shave off albiet to utter disdain of their families. A factual view in this case would have been that purely based on the fact that a regulation existed to the effect that "No growing beards with the exception of Sikhs" and the person joining the Air Force knew of this regulation/ accepted the same at the point of joining, hence ruling against the Muslim youths from growing beards. Someone could have then gone and debated that such a rule was unconstitutional or against the religious sentiments but that would have been a seperate case with a different perspective and based on religious interpretations.

In case 2 on the other had the court recognises that in a closed Indian community the fact that a women comes ahead and registers a rape case at the risk of losing her dignity is in itself a proof enough to recognise the crime. There is no further need of corroborative evidence in form of "witness" (the lack of which by the way is the reason why most criminals are acquitted)or even a doctors "report" (which is often modified especially in rural areas). It is upto the presiding judge to evaluate the "credibility' of the story based on the way it is presented by the plaintiff (and not her lawyer). The ruling puts the onus on the accused to prove that there was a "motive' for the plaintiff to frame the accused by making a rape claim. This ruling provides teeth to the system to deliver a swift justice and should lead to more cases being registered and more convictions. Again based on the requirement of factual justice this is an inappropriate ruling given that its fairly judgemental and justice can be deilivered even in absence of clear evidence purely based on "Statement by plaintiff". However in this case the System is being realistic rather than emotional as in case 1.

Two different rulings both with an element of emotion and judgement but both surely will change the face of Indian Judicial system-- one for the better and other for the worse. What do u think?

P.S. - I am not a lawyer or legal professional hence none of the words above are intended to implicate the Indian Judicial System in any manner. These are purely personal views and open to debate.