Rahim Ali: A therapeutic judgment

Can restoration of the citizenship of a dead man act as a therapeutic balm for people facing similar challenges?

—

APART from justice between the parties to a case, the law as laid down by the courts has an important function. Court judgments can have a therapeutic effect. According to a psychological study by Wohl and Branscombe (2005), judicial decisions can provide a sense of collective healing and empowerment for the victims of historical injustices, by acknowledging their suffering and restoring their dignity.

They can foster a positive social identity and a sense of belonging for marginalised groups, by affirming their rights and values. They can also inspire public confidence in the judiciary and its role as the protector of the rights and liberties of citizens.

One such judgment is a recent verdict delivered by Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah of the Supreme Court of India. Penned by Justice Amanullah, the judgment in Md. Rahim Ali versus Union of India quashed the reference made by the police against the petitioner, who was suspected of being a foreigner.

It is a therapeutic and fair judgment because it upholds the principles of natural justice, human dignity and, above all, constitutional morality. It also exposes the flaws and injustices of the system that was used to harass and disenfranchise Rahim Ali.

The judgment is, thus, a silent acknowledgment of thousands of other such cases in Assam. Reports by human rights groups indicate that language, dress and dietary habits have been the de facto relevant criteria for the police to doubt the citizenship of several.