**
In a decision critics are calling Kafkaesque, a High Court has dismissed a critical petition for a freelance Indian journalist trapped in Gaza. The reason the court rejects the journalist’s case is because he couldn’t submit an original signature from Gaza on a key legal document.
The journalist, reporting from one of the most dangerous and disconnected places on Earth, was denied a judicial hearing because he could not get a physically signed vakalatnama—the legal document empowering a lawyer to act—transported out of the war-torn territory.
A Life-or-Death Plea Derailed by Bureaucracy
The case, brought forward by the journalist’s family, sought urgent intervention from the Indian government to ensure his safety and facilitate his extraction. For weeks, communication has been sporadic, conducted in frantic bursts when internet services are available. The plea detailed the perilous conditions, the constant threat to life, and the desperate need for consular assistance. It was, by all accounts, a matter of life and death.
The court’s proceedings, however, quickly veered from the substance of this urgent plea to the minutiae of procedural compliance.
Why Was an Original Signature from Gaza Required?
The bench, while acknowledging the “grave circumstances,” found itself bound by established rules that mandate an original “wet ink” signature to verify the petitioner’s consent and prevent fraudulent litigation. The family’s lawyer argued passionately that demanding such a document from a conflict zone, where infrastructure is decimated and movement is nearly impossible, is an absurd and cruel expectation.
He proposed several alternatives to prove authenticity:
* A digitally signed document
* A verified email from the journalist
* A confirmation via video call
These suggestions were summarily dismissed. The court maintained that procedural sanctity could not be compromised, setting a chilling precedent where the process is valued more than the person it is meant to serve.
Digital India’s Analogue Justice System
This ruling throws a harsh spotlight on the glaring chasm between our institutions and the realities of the modern world. In an era of “Digital India,” where the government champions paperless transactions and digital signatures, our justice system remains stubbornly anchored in an analogue past. The irony is staggering. We can verify identity through biometrics for major financial transactions, but for a man whose life hangs in the balance, the system demands a piece of paper with ink on it.
This isn’t just a failure of logistics; it’s a failure of empathy. The very reason the journalist requires the court’s help—his entrapment in a besieged, disconnected territory—has become the technicality used to deny him that help.
A Chilling Precedent for Press Freedom
More broadly, this decision has dire implications for press freedom. Journalists who risk their lives on the frontlines already face immense danger. This ruling adds a new, insidious threat: the knowledge that if they get into trouble, their legal system back home might be unable to help due to an archaic procedural hang-up.
While the need to prevent fraudulent petitions is valid, justice cannot be so blind that it fails to see the war raging in the background. For the journalist in Gaza, a signature isn’t just ink on paper; it’s a luxury he cannot afford. And for our justice system, this dismissal may become a permanent stain on its conscience.
**
