Injustice In Criminal Justice

If we look at the same incident in another aspect, the doctor who tried to save the patients by trying to buy oxygen from his own money and did all that he could to prevent injustice was removed from the job. Here, what we have to take note is whether by trying to remove injustice from the society has consequences that would be unfavourable in trying to achieve injustice which would make it more unjust for an individual when there is no injustice caused by him or her? In another landmark judgement of the Supreme Court, the court ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right and it comes with birth and goes away through death, but if we analyse it, was justice served or was it a mere argument? If we critically analyse it, we can see

This mechanism would act as deterrent to find the income tax defaulters, those people who do not pay tax, identification of victim and the criminal would be much easier. In the recent days, there have been incidents where the lost children were found when the children approached the aadhaar office, their parent’s details and other details were found and it helped the children to reunite with their family members.

The question that would arise now is whether the aadhaar mechanism which serves as a medium to eradicate injustice would it create more injustice by infringing the privacy or would it be better not to act on it since this would not remove the injustice in the society by giving justice to all. If aadhaar would be legalised then it would be beneficial, because then there would be smoother functioning of the society as proved in the western countries where a similar system is in place and is running smoothly.

Criticism:

The criticism to Amartya Sen’s philosophy would be that the philosophy talks about eradication of injustice but does not talk as to how it tries to eradicate or what are the means by which eradication process needs to take. It is silent on the criteria which needs to be

Something moral may not be legal. Here if we see then it would be contrary to the courts functions these days, if there is a incident which is moral in nature but is against the law or is not legal then he does not say which type of justice has more value. There can be moral justice, legal justice, ethical justice, traditional justice, religious justice etc., and much more but he is silent on the fact that what would happen on these occasions. In India we follow the slogan of satyameva jayate, which means that truth shall prevail. If we consider this punishing an individual is injustice to him, the philosophy proposed by amartya sen is quiet on the fact what would happen if there is contrast between truth and justice? if we see that justice only needs to be done as amartya sen says then the judiciary would have no function since if it tries to remove injustice and pass an order then it would be injustice to the other person, because both the parties are right in their own ways and both seek justice. Would it be right to say that truth should prevail or would it be right to say that injustice should be removed? If yes then how? And by