Citizen Vigilante

 

While releasing seven rapists, the pure bred woke European Judge said "...... just like that raped girl, the rapists are also the victims....". Just sickening & nauseating, to say the least.

Well, let us come back to our own criminal justice system and criminal jurisprudence.

Former Judge of the SC of India, Mr. V R Krishna Iyer “Nobody is born as criminal. Every Saint has a past. Just like that every criminal has a future.”

Justice Krishna Iyer expanded on this idea with the concept of “Operation Valmiki” (inspired by the legend of Valmiki, the robber-turned-sage who composed the Ramayana).

He stated variations such as:

1.    “I believe in operation Valmiki because every Sant has a past and every criminal has a future.”

 

2.    “Nobody is born as criminal. Every Saint has a past. Just like that every criminal has a future.”

This reflects his belief that criminals are not inherently irredeemable, crime is often a product of circumstances, and the justice system should focus on reformation, rehabilitation, and restoring the offender’s human potential rather than pure retribution.

Key Cases and Philosophy:

Justice Krishna Iyer applied this in landmark judgments emphasizing reformative theory of punishment over retributive justice.

1.    Commutation of death sentences (e.g., in Ediga Anamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, where he outlined mitigating factors like age, socio-economic background, and potential for reform).

 

2. Prison reforms, opposing solitary confinement, and promoting opportunities for education, work, and mental transformation for inmates.

 

3.  Broader views that “criminals are not born but are made” and that society shares responsibility for crime.

He famously (in my view, Infamously) noted that jurisprudence must respond to humanism: “Never write off the man wearing the criminal attire but remove the dangerous degeneracy in him...”

What about the victim who has been raped or murdered? Did the victim not have any future? What about the human right of the Victim? Or is it a case that since the victim is no more, his/her future is irrelevant! What about the sufferings of the family members of the victim?

Yet this woke philosophy has continually influenced later courts.

For example, the Delhi High Court in 2026 cited it while granting premature release to a long-serving convict after 22+ years, stressing consideration of the offender’s future prospect.

Broader Impact: The idea aligns with reformative penology in India (seen in the Juvenile Justice system, probation laws, and sentencing guidelines). It is frequently quoted in legal exams, academic papers, and debates on capital punishment or life imprisonment. Critics sometimes view it as overly lenient in heinous cases, but it remains a cornerstone of humane criminal jurisprudence from the Supreme Court.

However, in my view, it is just a pure unadulterated wokeism that has penetrated the judiciary.

In short, it encapsulates Justice Krishna Iyer’s woke vision of justice as redemption-oriented rather than purely punitive. That's why in India, every criminal expresses faith in justice delivery system. The victims are left to suffer silently.

There is no precise, official count of "subsequent cases" that have followed this principle, as it is a broad philosophical and penological idea (part of the reformative theory of punishment) rather than a strict legal rule from a single judgment. It has become a foundational aspect of Indian criminal jurisprudence on sentencing, rehabilitation, prison reforms, premature release, and commutation of sentences.

Key Observations on Its Influence:

Widely cited and applied: Courts (Supreme Court and High Courts) routinely reference Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer’s ideas on reformation, "Operation Valmiki," and the full quote (“Every saint has a past and every sinner/criminal has a future”).

It appears in dozens to hundreds of judgments over the decades, especially in:

ü  Sentencing and commutation cases (e.g., balancing retribution with rehabilitation).

ü  Prison reform and prisoner rights matters.

ü  Bail, parole, remission, and premature release petitions.

ü  Death penalty cases (where it supports the “rarest of rare” doctrine with emphasis on reform potential).

Notable recent examples:

Mohd. Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022, Supreme Court): Justice Bela M. Trivedi quoted the Oscar Wilde version (“every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future”) while commuting a death sentence in a rape-murder case to life imprisonment (later clarified as 20 years). The Court stressed restorative justice and giving offenders a chance to reform.

Delhi High Court (2026): Explicitly recalled Krishna Iyer’s words to grant premature release to a life convict after 22+ years, citing transformation and future prospects.

It has been invoked in various High Court prisoner rights cases and Supreme Court observations on restorative justice.

Broader impact:

Krishna Iyer’s (woke) reformative approach (from cases like Mohd. Giasuddin, Ediga Anamma, etc.) influenced jurisprudence for over 50 years. It is taught in law schools, appears in legal exams, and shapes policies on probation, aftercare, and alternatives to harsh punishment. Later benches have built on it while balancing victim rights and heinous crimes. (A farfetched claim!)

Exact quantification is impractical because Indian Kanoon and other legal databases show frequent references (the principle is embedded in many judgments even without direct quotation). It is more accurate to say it has been followed in principle across numerous cases as a guiding tenet of humane sentencing, rather than a rigid precedent applied verbatim.

Citizen Vigilante is not only a product of a European Criminal Jurisprudence but has overwhelming relevance to Indian Criminal Jurisprudence. The latest example is the woke argument done by Sia's Lawyer pleading for bail citing her age of 20 years as if that age was okay for cold bloodedly murdering Ketan Agarwal but not okay for keeping her in jail. And some Judge had said "bail is a norm, jail is an exception", a outrightly very woke principle.

Remember the 13 August 2004 vigilante lynching of Akku Yadav (real name Bharat Kalicharan Yadav - 40 rapes including rapes of girls aged 10-12 years and 3 documented murders), a notorious gangster, serial rapist, and criminal, by a large group of women (primarily his victims) inside the Court Room No. 7 of the Nagpur District Court in Maharashtra, India? (I am writing a seperate post on this)

The whole criminal justice system stinks.

The Rotten Criminal Justice System: Who Benefits, Who Suffers, and Why

 

India’s criminal justice system is increasingly perceived as deeply compromised, delivering selective justice that heavily favors the powerful, the connected, and the privileged while leaving ordinary citizens vulnerable. Instead of being blind, the system often appears to have a keen sense of status, influence, and background.

How Privilege Operates

1. Political Connections If you belong to a powerful political family, serious crimes like rape, murder, or extortion carry significantly lower risks. The police, investigative agencies, and even the courts often work in tandem to delay, dilute, or derail the process. Influence flows from top to bottom, shielding the accused at every stage.

2. Judicial Links The system shows extraordinary leniency when judges or their families are involved. A sitting High Court judge allegedly caught with crores in unaccounted cash may simply be transferred to another court rather than facing swift investigation. Retired judges’ families accused of domestic violence or dowry-related deaths often receive unusual procedural privileges — such as extended consultations in judicial chambers before formal surrender. Oral directives from senior judges discouraging media engagement further raise questions about transparency.

3. Caste, Community, and Social Status

• Individuals from certain privileged castes frequently secure bail even in grave cases involving rape or murder.
• Accused from specific religious communities have, in multiple high-profile instances, benefited from delayed processes, midnight bail hearings, or public campaigns by liberal groups. Notable examples include the Nirbhaya case, where community identity became a factor in debates over juvenile justice, and instances of “love jihad,” land disputes, and communal violence where bail is granted with relative ease. The same liberal ecosystem that demands strict accountability in other cases often mobilizes in defense of such accused, framing them as victims of circumstance.

4. Celebrity and Elite Influence Children of celebrities or influential figures involved in drunk driving deaths or illegal possession of weapons often face minimal consequences. Courts have been known to close cases citing “lack of evidence” (despite clear initial facts) or impose token punishments like essay-writing on traffic rules. Anti-national or communal rioting cases involving connected individuals frequently see courts opening at odd hours to grant bail.

The Guiding Philosophy

This pattern is enabled by a judicial approach that treats “bail as the rule and jail as the exception” as near-absolute, with heavy emphasis on the “future” of the accused. When the accused has judicial connections, this principle is applied even more generously. The result is a system that often appears more concerned with protecting the rights of criminals than delivering justice to victims.

Root Cause: Societal Corruption

The justice system did not become rotten in isolation. It reflects the deeper corruption embedded in society. From jumping traffic signals and bribing policemen to larger compromises, citizens routinely participate in and normalize petty corruption. When small acts of corruption become normalized, investigative agencies and the judiciary — exposed to the same culture — become vulnerable to bigger temptations.

Police are often the first point of compromise. Politicians and influential families know exactly whom to approach. When the accused is a judge’s relative, the incentive for manipulation increases further. The system that works on blood money for minor cases naturally scales up for major ones.

Who Suffers?

The real victims are law-abiding citizens — particularly the poor and middle class — who lack political connections, judicial links, elite status, or financial power. For them, the system is slow, expensive, and often hostile. Cases drag on for years or decades. Public memory fades quickly, and serious crimes (such as the 2026 Nashik rape-murder of a three-year-old or the Twisha Sharma case) slip out of headlines within weeks, with investigations appearing stalled.

The Way Forward

Blaming only judges, politicians, or police is convenient but incomplete. The system is ultimately a reflection of the society that sustains it. Real change requires:

• Consistent public pressure through sustained scrutiny on social media and traditional outlets.
• Refusal to let cases disappear from collective memory.
• Greater transparency in judicial appointments, transfers, and asset declarations.
• Police and investigative reforms with stronger accountability mechanisms.
• Societal rejection of everyday corruption, starting from the smallest compromises.

Extreme suggestions — such as vigilante justice or extra-judicial executions — may reflect public frustration, but they ultimately undermine the rule of law and create new cycles of violence. The sustainable solution lies in strengthening institutions, not bypassing them. But when the Institutions fail to deliver the justice, there is no other alternative, but the public frustration takes over, as happened in Nagpur on 4^th May 2006.

Until citizens demand better — and demonstrate integrity in their own daily conduct — the system will continue to favor the powerful. Justice cannot be outsourced to a few; it must be defended by the many.