(Series of vidhwa vilap from an enigmatic, diabolical and vicious split personality – full of contradictions, a Megalomaniac and overall, a Devil incarnate)

Baba Bakhoran Dass (BBD) feels that punishment is a conventional device for the expression of attitudes of resentment and indignation, and of judgments of disapproval and reprobation, on the part either of the punishing authority himself or of those “in whose name” the punishment is inflicted. Punishment, in short, has a symbolic significance largely missing from other kinds of penalties. The morality of punishment rests upon theories of deterrence, retribution, just deserts, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and most recently, restorative justice. These theories attempt to justify society’s imposition of punishment on offenders and try to provide an adequate ethical rationale for inflicting harm.

Deterrence maintains that people are deterred from crime because they are concerned about the possible consequences of their actions. Utilitarian philosophers first put forward this justification for punishment. Retribution theorists argue that punishment is justified because it is deserved, and punishment therefore becomes a question of responsibility and accountability for acts that harm society.

Retribution is justified in a number of ways, including the notion that offenders are paying their debt to society, that they are being censured by society, and that punishment has an expressive character that ought to be communicated to an offender. Purpose of punishment, as Baba Bakhoran Dass understands (as an ex member of TMT of two great institutions) are:

• Punishment will stop the offender from committing further crimes.
• Punishment tells the victim that society disapproves of the harm that he or she has suffered.
• Punishment discourages others from doing the same thing.
• Punishment protects society from dangerous or dishonest people.
• Punishment allows an offender to make amends for the harm he or she has caused.
• Punishment ensures that people understand that laws are there to be obeyed.

The entire process of delivery of the humiliating sentence needs proper and threadbare view with open mind by the Competent Authority for delivery of natural justice – which also exhibit that the punishment is not based on the theory of retribution, rather it should be based on utilitarian theory of jurisprudence. The ground realities are entire different than what is said, what is written; and what is delivered.

BBD recollects one small incident, while working in Dhalbhoomi area of Aaryavarta. One of the customer having nearly 20 lakhs of solid deposit, needed a loan of 13 lakhs based on valuation report of Household residential property worth 25 lakhs. The processing and recommending authority who was an Union leader having leaning towards balm dal or baam dal (leftist to be very precise) and supporter of Sarvahara, was kind enough to recommend 12,95,000 – but under any situation a big NO to 13 lakhs.

BBD as unit head made all efforts to convince this great gentleman Officer for 13 lakhs – but failed. Ultimately, BBD sanctioned 13 lakhs against recommendations of 12,95,000; and as per policy, had to send the note to the sultan of the area for ratification. Incidentally, Sultan never liked BBD in any capacity. After lapse of nearly 354 days, approval was accorded by the Sultan on the action taken by BBD for exceeding 5,000 in recommendations.

Now, the moot question which remains unanswered even after lapse if nearly a decade that why no action was taken against anybody. Either of them was wrong. Both cannot be right.

But, BBD was relegated based on subsequent researches made by the same gentleman officer.

Any solace from any corner for a rightful jurisprudence?