Bihar's 33 year case and India's selective justice system

A court in the Vaishali district of Bihar convicted Deep Rai, 84, of an attempted murder case that began more than three decades ago. In June 2026, Rai and others allegedly attacked a neighbouring couple in 1992 after a row in their village. When broken glass was reportedly scattered on a pathway near the victims’ home, a couple protested, and the situation turned violent. The attackers attacked the husband and wife and shot them. Although the victims survived, injuries to their bodies were serious enough for police to file an investigation into rioting, armed rioting, attempted murder, and firearms violations.

In 1993, the police wrapped up their investigation and submitted their first chargesheet. Legally, things were underway. In truth, the wheels of justice were still. It wasn't until 1999, almost seven years later, that the accused were charged. This was the beginning of a decades-long trial. The case meandered through the systems with witnesses being called, hearings being set, and rescheduled. When the court finally decided in 2026, four of the five accused had died. The only one still alive and facing the trial was Deep Rai.

Social media captured the image of the elderly man walking out of the courtroom. He was seen walking with support. Many videos showed him bent over with age and being assisted by two other people. Many were concerned about his age and what he was going through. Some said that an 84-year-old man should be treated with more sympathy. Some said that people shouldn't take serious crimes lightly because of their age. But the biggest issue was not about the age of the man who was convicted. The biggest issue was that this case, about the attempted murder of a man, took thirty-three years for the court to decide.

There is a phrase that postponing justice is justice being denied. There is a reason for this case being such an example. The people whose case this was about had to wait for thirty-three years for the court to reach a decision. They went through years and years of not knowing what the court would decide about the case. The memories faded, and witnesses who were of the same age and a lot of time was lost. Even though the court gave a decision in the end, it is beyond difficult to say that justice was served at all because so much time was lost. Waiting thirty-three years to get a court decision is a lot to ask anyone.

There are two sides to the increase in delays. On one side of the argument, delays are detrimental to the rights of the accused. People face criminal charges for years or even decades if a resolution isn't found, and that stretches the definition of a punishment. The law exists to punish the guilty, but there is a legal obligation to resolve the case within a reasonable time, and the courts are a mechanism of the state to fairly and efficiently resolve disputes. The failure of the system to resolve a case that has been open for over three decades punishes the accused, the plaintiff, and everyone interested in justice.

The Bihar case illustrates another aspect of the Indian judicial system. Courts are overrun with millions of pending cases. Various reasons can be cited for the slow progress of criminal cases. Chief among those is the woeful shortage of judges. Repeated adjournments slow down the trial significantly. Heavily burdened court systems mean that case resolution can take many years instead of the reasonable time of a few years. The system has failed its citizens, and justice remains elusive for its citizens.

As such, many people have asked if the case we'd have had to wait this long if it had involved the powerful or the wealthy? Judging by the public sentiment on India's justice system, there appear to be different legal systems for different social groups. The justice system works for the wealthy, while the poor have to forgo the right to justice. The perception of unequal treatment erodes trust in the rule of law.

Delays in the judicial process are becoming the norm in many parts of the world. Society has grown apathetic to the injustice of it. Citizens resign to the belief that nothing will change. People stop demanding justice, and consequently, the system remains stagnant. Justice will not be served if the demand isn’t there.

Divisive and partisan political fights have overshadowed the discussions about what keeps our country going, such as the judicial system and its need to be reformed in an orderly and thorough manner. A functioning justice system is essential to a true democracy.

Deep Rai’s conviction is not the end of a decades-long feud between villagers. It is a reminder of the value of justice delivered at great cost. After a long time, justice was delivered; the case became a symbol for the slothfulness of the system, for the many unjustly accused. Justice should be served efficiently, but even in the most unjust system, justice reminds us that even if the crime is not punished, there is no demand for justice.

References:

. . .