Justice, as we know, must be based on the truth of what actually happened. This is a major problem in legal professionals and law because the facts of any case are usually contested. Each side has its own story and the truth is out somewhere. Thus truth and justice depend on effective discovery.
Truth is understood in everyday life, often elusive. Truth at one level seems to be only part of the whole truth. Layers of partial truths and outright lies have to be unraveled. At the end of the investigation, at the end of the case, there will be the truth. But it is not easy to catch the truth.
According to the judiciary, the truth is evidence in the trial. Testimony alone is an incredible path to truth. The truth is mostly dependent on the writing done by the people who join it. The judge may have an inference as to who is lying or not but he can only decide according to the evidence.
Lawyers – legal professionals – are in charge of the duty to find the truth. They fail in their duty most of the time. It can often take a lot of work to discover the truth. It is easy to win your favor no matter what happens. It does not make people believe in the rule of law. Lawyers should accept that as professionals, it is our duty to bring out the truth.
Judges in the High Courts or Supreme Courts develop an idealistic approach to the question of truth. This can be seen in the texts of judgments, where truth is sometimes discussed in a style centered on the ambitions of literature, deeply philosophical, moral, religious, cultural, or legal opinion.
For example, Justice Krishna Iyer, in a Supreme Court judgment in 1977, claimed to have recovered the debt, wrote: “Truth, like a song, can be full and half-truthful noises! Justice is truth, beauty is, and the strategy to correct injustice in the pursuit of perfect truth and harmony of human relationships. The best time of law is not in paying attention to the essence but in being the distributive agent of absolute impartiality. ”
Quid Ist Veritas issue? Was raised in a trial by a famous Roman king where the accused claimed they should be believed because they were telling the truth. Since the case involved the death penalty, the case was serious enough to bring before this Roman king, who alone had the right to order death or liberty.
Yet the witnesses against the accused were the most respected people in the country. Apart from fulfilling a duty to do justice according to the truth, under Roman law, the king also had many political views. The accused was a poor man; The accused are not only politically powerful but also the wealthiest of its state.
Being a king was a powerful position, freeing the accused on the basis of “he had told the truth” would have many consequences, including an appeal to the emperor in Rome that could end his king.
He, therefore, decided that knowing the truth which was not sufficient to save the accused, was not enough to save the one who was telling the truth. Hence the saying “Quid est Veritas?”
The cost of determining the truth in their calculations of various realities and forces at work was to be washed out of their hands. “Do with him what you will. I do not have blood on my hands. ”