The concept of Rule of Law in its most fundamental sense is the foundation upon which modern democratic society is founded and seeks to establish. The principle of Rule of Law vests in a state that is governed by laws and not by the arbitrary actions of men. The Rule of Law is a crucial component in a list of items that make up contemporary political ideals; “Rule of Law symbolizes an enlightened civilized society’s efforts and quest to combine that degree of liberty without which law is tyranny with that degree of law without which liberty becomes license.” Indian constitution is the law of the land and prevails over Judiciary, the Legislature, and the Executive. These three organs of the state have to act according to the principles engraved in the constitution. “The rule of law requires that the government should be subject to the law rather than the law subject to the government”

Here is an example where the State has failed in its duty to maintain the Rule of Law in the case of the horrifying and heartrending killing of a marginalized Dalit whose community has been at the receiving end of discrimination and violence for ages. In this case, the deceased was tied to the gate of the factory while he was collecting scraps and was beaten mercilessly. The entire incident, which took place near Rajkot district’s ‘SHAPAR’ town, was caught on CCTV and was also recorded on a mobile phone. The apex court said that the HC passed the bail order without considering the seriousness of the offense and noted that HC erred in passing order and noted that pipe and the belt used in the commission of the crime were recovered and the video footage clearly showed that the deceased was brutally beaten by the accused.  F.I.R. was registered at Police Station, Shapar (Veraval) as C.R. No. I/38 of 2018 against the five accused including respective respondents No.1 herein for the offenses under Sections 302, 114, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, Section135, 37(1) of the Gujarat Police Act, and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The investigation was carried out by the concerned Dy.SP Gondal division and thereafter by Dy.SP (SC & ST Cell) Rajkot Rural. After investigation all the accused persons (five in numbers) came to be charge-sheeted for the offenses under Sections 302, 342, 354, 323, 143, 147,148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 having committed the murder of the deceased – Mukeshbhai – husband of the appellant – Jayaben. That respondent No.1 herein moved a bail application before the learned Sessions Court, Gondal seeking release on bail, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.09.2018.

Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Sessions Court accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.1502 of 2018 before the High Court which in its order dated 04.02.2019, released respondent No.1, Kanubhai Zala on bail.  However, the Director of Prosecution, Govt. of Gujarat did not challenge the bail in the Supreme Court of India.  However, Complainant Jayaben dissatisfied with the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court preferred Criminal Appeals 1655 &  1656 of 2021 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court on January 10, 2022, pulled up Gujarat Government for not challenging bail granted to an accused Dalit beaten to death in 2018, saying it failed to protect the rights of the victim and set aside the High court order two and half years after bail was granted.

Supreme Court holding that the bail was granted by the High Court, in “a most perfunctory and casual manner” a bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarthana said that the state should be serious in such cases and should have immediately challenged the order of High court. It rejected the submission of the state which contended that ‘it takes time to make a decision whether to prefer an appeal or not” and held that the state failed in its duty to protect the victims.

"In criminal matters, the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interest of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interest of the community to book," the Court opined.

The court also said that the Director of Prosecution has failed to perform his duties in the instant case. "Given that crimes are treated as a wrong against the society as a whole, the role of the Director of Prosecution in the administration of justice is crucial," ."The post of Director of Prosecution is a very important post insofar as the administration of justice in criminal matters is concerned. It is the duty of the Director of Prosecution to take a prompt decision," the Court reminded.

Looking into the above facts, we categorically demand the following immediate actions in the interest of justice and set an example for others to follow.  

1. Please immediately remove and suspend the Director of Prosecution who has failed to perform his official duties in the interest of justice and maintaining the Rule of Law.

2. Please also Charge Sheet the Director of Prosecution for his gross negligence of official duties