A tax assessee has to deal with the problem of delay almost every time it interacts with the tax authorities. This delay is sometimes due to the system of tax administration, which imposes unnecessary and unreasonable restrictions in the name of checking evasion of taxes. Sometime it is arbitrary whim of the tax administrator, employed to harass an assessee. Sometimes it is a trick to extort corrupt money from the assessee. For whatever purpose this delay is employed, it always results in cost escalation in the normal business process, which is extremely harmful to any economy in the fiercely competitive world. This paper seeks to examine the various steps taken by the state to curb this delay and various remedial measures available to an assessee in case of unreasonable and inordinate delay.
In the administration of Custom, Central Excise and Service tax; the corruption money is euphemistically called “SPEED MONEY”. This phrase refers to the fact that bribe is paid to speed up your file in the taxation department. Thus if you pay the speed money, your files will be speedly cleared and if you refuse, your files will not be cleared on one ground or the other. If the tax administrator is smart enough, he will raise some objection in your documentation, he will call for more documents to examine your case and numerous other tricks he has under his sleeve. Even when he is not smart, he can always make your file missing.
Although numerous circular has been issued by the CBEC directing its officers to work efficiently and expeditiously. There are numerous judgments of superior courts castigating inordinate delays. There are many provisions in the statute itself fixing a time limit. Nevertheless delay occurs. And every assessee knows it happens due to malafide of the departmental officers. Sometime the assessee shows the courage to bring such delay into the notice of the superior officers. But no person has ever been held responsible for any delay. This author is not aware of any instance where any action was ever taken against any officer of the department for delay. This state of affairs clearly points out to the fact that whatever remedies are available against delay, is available on paper only. This paper also seeks to examine the reasons for this state of affairs and suggest remedial measures against this malaise.
The Citizen Charter has been issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs as its commitment to the responsive and efficient tax administration. It gives a right in the hand of the assessee to force the tax administration to comply with their duty. The text of the citizen charter reads as,
“CITIZEN’S CHARTER”
This Charter is a declaration of our mission, values and standards, and our Commitment to achieve excellence in the formulation and implementation of Customs and Central Excise policies and procedures for the benefit of the Trade and Industries, who are our partners in progress.
Our Commitment
We shall carryout our tasks with
• Integrity and Judiciousness
• Courtesy and Understanding
• Objectivity and transparency
• Promptness and efficiency
We shall encourage and assist Voluntary tax compliance by our Clients.
Our expectation
We expect you to be prompt and reasonable in fulfilling your duty and legal obligations and be true and honest in furnishing information to us.
Our Standards
We Shall
• Acknowledge declarations intimations, applications, returns and all communication on the spot and in any case within 7 days of their receipt.
• Respond to all communication within 15 working days of its receipt.
• Settle any disputes relating to declarations or assessment within 10 working days of written or oral explanation.
The importance of the charter has been explained by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), in the matter of Thanjavur Spinning Mills [2004 (163) E.L.T. 278 (Commr. Appl.)], wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) declares,
“This Citizen’s Charter is a Magna Carta reflecting the higher aspirations of the Department. It is a noble document propounding the Department’s ideals, vision and to frame and mould the thinking of the officials to the challenges of democracy, freedom, transparency and human dignity. Every official needs to act with profound conviction to dedicate his official life to the attainment of these objectives. If we have the courage to make the right decisions and if we have an abiding faith that only the right will ultimately survive, we shall know that we are helping to build a nation in which the finer values of man’s spirit may flower. The Citizen’s Charter is a vision of something great and tremendous, a call to a heroic mission, the challenge of a truly national message. It is a time of challenge and change. Let us apply ourselves to that which is presented to us, as our appropriate object, and let the sacred obligations, which have devolved on our Department sink deep into our hearts. There is opened to us a noble pursuit, to which the spirit of the times strongly invites us. Let our conceptions be enlarged to the circle of our duties. Let us convince the people that our system is the best, let us extend our ideas over the whole of the vast field in which we are called to act. In keeping with the noble ideals enshrined in the Citizen’s Charter the Appellant deserved to get a prompt reply for their petition dated 27-8-2001. However, the mystical secrets of office procedure denied them a timely reply. We have to push aside the fateful and inexorable realism of such complacency. The Appellants, seem to be asking the Department whether in this time of relentless challenge do we have those qualities of adjustment, those characteristics of a dynamic office, which are requisite to meet the accelerating rate of change, which is the overriding characteristic of our time? The highest ethical concepts is enshrined in our Citizen Charter but if we fail to perform our share of duties and responsibilities, the visions enshrined and displayed will mean no more than a name carved deeply into marble on an expensive crematory mausoleum. There is no particular inspiration in reading headstones in a graveyard.”
The Board has always emphasized the needs of an assessee friendly and responsive tax administration. In Circular No. 24/2000-Cus., dated 30th Mar. 2000, the board says, “the Hon’ble Minister of State of Finance (Revenue) has expressed his anguish over the indifferent and unresponsive approach and lack of sensitivity of our officers even to the genuine representations/complaints by general public. The field officers did not even bother to forward representation to the Government and recommend condonation at their own initiative till the matter was brought to Minister’s notice by a VIP. The Hon’ble Minister has observed that the rule and regulations should be used to the benefit of our citizens rather than applying them mechanically creating more work for everybody.”
To make the tax administration real efficient and responsive to the need of public the CBEC issued Circular No. 393/26/98-CX, dated 2-6-1998, wherein it directed that,
1.All declarations, intimations, etc. when sent by FAX, E-mail, by Post or by Courier shall be accepted by the filed formations;
2. Appointments should be given also on E-mail on request from the trade;
3. All queries by E-mail should be accepted and the answers should be sent by E-mail;
4. Any query received from the trade must be answered within a maximum of four weeks from the date of receipt.
The above directions have been reiterated by the CBEC Central Excise Manual of supplementary instructions in para 3.4.These instructions give certain very important right to the assessee.
The law has always been very clear on the exercise of powers and discretion conferred by a rule of law. The Citizen Charter re-enforces these values and give them a strong and clear legal footing. Integrity, judiciousness and reasonableness are not mere legal rhetoric but sound legal principles on which our constitution is based upon.
The Right to Information Act, 2005.
The department of Central Excise and Customs is a public authority within the meaning of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and hence, they are bound by the provisions of the Act. As per Section 4(b)(iii) of the Act, the authority has to publish the norms set by it for discharge of its functions. As per Section 4(b)(ii) of the Act it has to publish the power and duties of its officers and employees and the procedure followed by then in discharge of its functions. The citizen charter is, at the most, a skeleton of the norms set by the CBEC. Further the Central Board of Excise and Customs has not prepared any document, which specify the duties of its officers and employees. Nevertheless, certain information has been made public on the CBEC web site, which again give valuable rights to the assessee.
The Governance in India has largely been a declaration of powers of the officers and employees of the Government. This is probably a colonial legacy when the government was British and the “native public” was there to be ruled. There cannot be any declaration of rights of people or duty of the Government towards people, who are “Ghulam” of a foreign power. Unfortunately even after independence the mindset continues. Thus every Act provided for the powers of the officers but was invariably silent on the duties of the officers. Off course, the gap was filled by the judicial pronouncements, but these are neither sufficient nor expresses the will of the elected legislatures. The Central Board of Excise and Customs have not notified till now the duties of its officers and employees till now. The duty imposed by the Right to Information Act is a public duty, which must be done, sooner than later.
Section 4(d) of the Act provides that every public authority shall give reasons for its decisions, irrelevant of the fact that the decision is administrative or quasi-judicial. In UOI v/s Mohan Lal Kooper [AIR 1974 SC 87], the Supreme Court observed that reasons are the link between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and actual conclusions. They disclosed how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. Fair play in action requires that every authority should record reasons for its decisions, whether administrative or quasi-judicial. Every citizen has a right to know as to on what basis a decision has been taken which may affect his situation. Recording of reasons is an assurance of the fact that the authority has applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before arriving at any decision. Further it fecilitates proper supervision on the authority concerned by higher administration or by the process of judicial review. An decision, action or order of any statutory or public authority, bereft of reasoning, would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and would deemed to have been arrived at by unfair procedure offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India [Krishna Swami v/s UOI, AIR 1993 SC 1407]. The Right to Information Act, 2002 merely says what was always law of the land as per the binding judgments of the Supreme Court. However, enforcement of a statutory provision is always easier as compared to enforcement of a judge-made law.
Unjustified delay is an act of the authority for which citizens can seek information including reasons for delay. The Right to Information Act, 2005 gives valuable rights to the citizens against delay. Any delay in violation of Citizens Charter, in violation of the statutory provided time limit or otherwise inordinate delay has to be explained with reasons as per section 4(1)(d) of the Act. The citizen has a right to seek reasons for such delays and the authorities are bound to provide reasons. Further when any such delay is brought to the notice of superior officers, he has to take appropriate action against such delay. The assessee has a right to seek information from him as to what action has been taken.
Statutory Provisions:
There are various provisions in the law under which certain particular acts have to be done within a specified time schedule. For example a demand can be raised only within the time specified in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. In certain other situations, like refund under Section 11B, there are provisions for interest as a penalty for delay. Certain other situations are covered by CBEC instructions and Citizen’s Charter. For example the Board has directed that adjudication order should be issued within 7 days of personal hearing (Circular No. ). Similarly the Board has directed that drawback claim should be decided within 3 days in case of EDI shipping bills and within 5 days in case of manual shipping bills. There is no need to repeat here that these circulars are known more for their violation than for implementation.
Nevertheless, there are many situations for which there is no time limit has been specified and assessees are at the mercy of the departmental officers. Due to such delaying tactics of the officers, the assessee suffers huge losses for which there is no provision under the Customs or Central Excise law. In some cases the assessees have raised this point before higher judiciary with favourable results.
When the goods are detained in port area, it results in huge demurrage liability on the importer. In Shipping Corporation v. C L Jain Woolen Mills, [2001 (129) ELT 561(SC)], the apex court held that if seizure and consequent detention was held to be illegal, the demurrage should be paid by the Customs department. Various High Courts took the same view. For example Delhi High Court in Trishul Impex v. UOI [1992 (58) ELT 182], In R C Fabrics v. UOI [1995 (76) ELT 9], Kolkata High Court in Surabhi Leather v. CC [1992 (59) ELT 253], Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sujana Steels v. CCE [2002 (141) ELT 343], Madras High Court in Anuma Precisions Tolls v. CC [2002 (121) ELT 309], took the view that Customs department is liable to pay demurrage in cases of unjustified seizure and detention of goods.
On its part, CBEC has issued various guidelines so that harassment of the importer is not done and demurrage charges do not become payable. Instructions have been issued in Chapter 16, para 5 of the CBEC Customs Manual, 2001. The circular, 42/2001 dated 31.07.2001 says that erring officers were held liable. However, this author is not aware of any case when any erring officer was ever found accountable. In fact, this author is aware of a recent case when goods were illegally detained by a premier investigating agency of the Customs and the goods were not released despite the provisions of law were brought to the notice of senior officers.
In case of North Eastern states, there are provisions in Notification No. 32/99 and 33/99 of Central Excise that the amount of duty paid in cash shall be refunded by 15th of next month. In case of any delay in verification, the amount should be refunded provisionally by that date. Despite such clear-cut provision, this author is ware of some cases where the amount has not been refunded, even when such acts were brought to the notice of senior officers.
It is difficult to imagine that whatever is happening at the ground level is not known to the senior officers or board. And if is really not known, it speaks of their competence. And if the law is not implemented despite the facts were brought to their notice, their bonafide is in doubt.
RIGHTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE EXCERCISED BY THE ASSESSEE:
The protection of law is available only to vigilant citizens. Law cannot protect those persons who sleep over their right. If our citizens are of the opinion that their rights against government officers will be protected by the government, their rights against junior officers will be protected by senior officers- it is merely a wishful thinking. Unjustified delay by the department and its officers are negligence and dereliction of their duties. It is a “Civil Wrong”, an actionable claim in the court of law. In cases of unjustified delay, the erring officers personally and the department vicariously is liable to compensate the assessee.
Although we have inherited our legal system from the British Common Law, unfortunately the law of torts didn’t get enough attention in our country. Claiming compensation against the government was further made difficult by the doctrine of sovereign protection, procedural protection under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and “good faith” clause protection extended to government servants under various laws.
Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962 protects the officers and government, if the action has been taken in good faith. The action can be initiated only after giving the person one month notice. The action can be initiated within three month from the date of cause of action. Similar provision has been made under Section 40 of the Central Excise Act. These provisions are extremely loaded against the assessee and gives too much protection to the government and its officers. Therefore it is not surprising that probably no proceeding has ever been initiated against any of the officers at any point of time. These laws are primarily responsible for rampant corruption in our government, rampant human rights abuses by our government agencies, rampant redtapism, rampant ignorance of pleas of common man in the power corridors and rampant lack of accountability and sincerety in the government officers.
Nevertheless, even these laws can be made to work, if the assessee is vigilant of their rights. Ignorance of laws and sleeping over your rights can never be justified on any ground. Despite such laws, the assessee is still empowered to move the civil court to claim compensation against any unjustified delay. Mere initiation of such action by the assessee will have a salutary effect on the administration of Customs and Central Excise.
SUGGESTION:
The law should be amended to include certain sections, which protects citizens against the unlawful actions of the officers. Justice requires that in the administration of taxation laws, genuine concern of the citizens must be kept in mind. Justice is the sole purpose of any law. A law cannot be justified on the ground of existence of legislative power but it can be justified only when it furthers the ends of justice. Taxation can never be justified merely on the ground of revenue collection, but has be justified only on the basis of lager justice in the society. St. Augustine said in “The City of God”,
“JUSTICE BEING TAKEN AWAY, THEN
WHAT ARE KINGDOMS, BUT GREAT ROBBERIES?
FOR WHAT ARE ROBBERIES THEMSELVES,
BUT LITTLE KINGDOMS.”
A law devoid of justice is nothing but a tool of robbery.
Secondly, in the law there must be procedure through which citizens can enforce their rights. It will not be out of place to suggest that even Commissioner(Appeals) or CESTAT can be empowered to receive citizen’s complaints against various form of harassment and delay and may be empowered to issue directions or order compensation. Speedy adjudication of taxation issue is important, but speedy stoppage of harassment is even more important.
CONCLUSION:
Unjustified delay is violation of basic spirit of the customs and central excise law, apart from being outright violation of Citizen’s Charter and CBEC instructions. It is civil wrong and an assessee can claim compensation for that. There is a need to amend the laws to make it more assessee friendly so that he may not face undue harassment in the hand of assessee.
By: Rajesh Kumar (Advocate)
Posts Tagged ‘Whim’
Moral Law, Justice, and Evolution
January 16th, 2010We already mentioned intelligence. Remember in the article: How Do We Account for Instinct? we divided it up into two broad categories, one of which we call instinct and the other a type of decision-making ability? We grouped the lower forms of animals into the first category and humans into the second. Other creatures, we allowed, appear to operate using a combination of instinct and “thinking.”
But, of course, it is really more complicated than that. People have instincts too. The sexual drive, a mother’s love for her offspring, and a basic desire to survive are undeniable human instincts. Each of these traits are shared to one degree or another with animals. However, we seem to have something more than mere instinct.
Somehow or another we find ourselves with a moral sense of right and wrong. We feel as though we know somethings are right and others are wrong. But then again, is what we consider right and wrong merely a subjective whim? Or is it possible that there might be a real, honest-to-goodness, objective standard for good behavior?
Some people claim there’s no fixed standard for decent behavior. It varies over time and from one culture to another. Different civilizations and different ages have had very different ideas on morality, they say. And they seem to have a point.
Manners and Styles
Certainly manners, styles, and dress codes change over time. The past half century has seen considerable change in the United States. In 1960, most women worked in their homes raising children. They usually wore dresses, and those dresses were of a certain conventional length.
Men were expected to be the breadwinners. They wore their hair short and rarely had facial hair. Children addressed grownups as “Sir” or Ma’am” and in general were taught to be deferential to adults. Unless you were well acquainted, it was Mr., Mrs, or Miss whatever their last-name-was. Times have changed!
Much of what passes as normal behavior nowadays would have been socially unacceptable just thirty years ago. And it works both ways. Many of the things our ancestors did in the past would not be tolerated today. A few hundred years ago, capital punishment was the approved punishment for crimes ranging from petty theft to treason. Witches were hung or burned. And slavery was by and large considered an acceptable practice.
Moral Principles
Obviously some of the things our forefathers believed are social taboos today and vice versa. However, that’s not the whole story. While some values can and do vary, others evidently do not. In his book, Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis points out that if you take the trouble to compare the moral teachings of ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, and Romans, you will be struck with how much they have in common with each other and with us today.
Fair play, unselfishness, courage, faithfulness, honesty, and truthfulness have always been admired, whereas treachery, murder, robbery, theft, and rape have always been condemned. Men have disagreed over whom you should be unselfish to – just your family, your country, or to everyone.
But none have advocated putting yourself first. Some cultures have allowed more than one wife, but none allow you to have just any woman you want.
Golden Rule
The most universal concept of all is also the most basic. We call it the Golden Rule. Most moral teachings state it in a negative form such as “Never do to others what you would not have them do to you.” This fundamental rule of conduct turns up in rabbinical Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism.
We also see it in Greek and Roman ethical teachings and even in Old Norse proverbs. Jesus Christ turned it around and put it in its positive form two thousand years ago. “Do to others what you would have them do to you.”
Is any other type of morality possible? Lewis challenges us, “. . . think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battles, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might as well try to imagine a country where two and two make five.”
The Moral Law
It sounds like the rule of right and wrong, the moral law, or whatever you want to call it, exists on two separate levels. One is arbitrary. Fashion, convention, or taste sets the tone for acceptable behavior on this level.
Then we see another moral level beyond the trends of society. Here we find a permanent core of values. These fundamental guides for human behavior seem to be deeply ingrained in mankind and are not swayed by time and place circumstances.
Everyday conversation suggests that most of us at heart believe in a real right and wrong. Take arguments for example. People young and old, educated and uneducated, often say such things as: “Come on, you promised.” “Hey, you broke in line ahead of us. That’s not fair.” “Why don’t you help me? I helped you when you needed it.”
C.S. Lewis tells us that remarks of that sort don’t just mean that the other fellow’s attitude doesn’t happen to please the speaker. There is something else involved. The one who makes the complaint is appealing to a certain standard of behavior which he expects the other person to know about.
And usually he is right. The other man rarely replies, “I don’t give a hoot about fairness.” No. He makes out that what he’s doing isn’t really unfair after all. He claims to have some special excuse which lets him off the hook for not living up to his promise this time, or for breaking in line, or for not helping you on this occasion.
It looks as though both sides really agree there is a law or rule of fair play. Quarreling means trying to show the other person is wrong. What’s the sense in trying to do that unless both sides agree as to what is right and wrong. Just as in basketball, to paraphrase Lewis’ example, there’s no sense in saying a player committed a foul unless there is an agreement on the rules of basketball.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Thieves cannot excuse themselves saying they didn’t know stealing was a crime. Murderers can’t get away with murder, claiming they didn’t know murder was wrong. The underlying idea is that all citizens are expected to understand that stealing and murder are wrong.
Can you imagine an attorney in a request that the case be dismissed against his client, saying, “No judge, I don’t think my client should be held responsible for murdering his wife and six children. After all, the defendant doesn’t have a law degree. Why should we expect him to know all the finer points of the law?”
On the other hand, lawyers do try to excuse their clients by pleading “temporary insanity.” Doesn’t that let the cat out of the bag? What they are saying is that for one reason or another, the accused was momentarily mentally unbalanced and didn’t understand he was committing an act which all of us know to be wrong. Had the defendant been sane at the moment, he would have recognized and upheld the same Rules for Right Conduct that all the rest of us sane people do.
They seem to be affirming that criminal codes are based on certain moral truths. In fact, federal and state criminal laws wouldn’t make sense unless there were a real standard of decent behavior which the “sane” criminal knows as well as we do and ought to have practiced.
Sometimes right and wrong are so obvious, no one seriously questions it. After World War II, Germany was widely denounced for their war crimes. But as Lewis observes: “What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced?”
Earlier we asked, is our idea of right and wrong a subjective whim or a real objective standard for good behavior. Evidently it is both. Manners, styles, clothing, and opinions on any number of subjects vary over time and location.
Then again virtues such as courage, faithfulness, and honesty have always been praised. Likewise, vices such as treachery, murder, and theft have been universally condemned.
Civilizations throughout history have reflected these eternal values. And they are still with us today. Much of what we think, much of what we say, and much of what we do would be utter nonsense if there were not a true moral standard of right and wrong.
Now if we can agree that there really is an objective standard of right and wrong, we can go on to our next question. Namely where does this standard come from? Some say mankind invented the moral code because civilization couldn’t function without basic rules for getting along. Through education, they passed these rules for right living on down from one generation to the next.
Others say the same Outside Source which designed the human body also produced the moral code as a guide for our behavior. The moral law was imprinted in humans much the same as instinct. Who’s right?
Before we take up that question, let’s first consider an entirely different subject – mathematics. Math, as we know, is based upon certain objective truths. Algebra, calculus, and trigonometry are all derived from solid mathematical principles which have been around long before mankind discovered them.
And if we somehow lose knowledge of them again, those principles would still be there awaiting future generations to rediscover them. Therefore, we can say that mathematical truths exist separate from any human knowledge of them.
Notice we say such things as: Pythagoras discovered the principles governing the right-angled triangle. Or Descartes discovered the principles behind analytical geometry. We don’t say they “invented” the principles. They were already there. In the same way we speak of people discovering other scientific facts.
In 1781, William Hershel discovered the planet Uranus, and in 1930. C. Tombaugh discovered Pluto. Uranus and Pluto have probably been around as long as our own planet. They would still be there even if we had never learned of their existence.
Bearing that in mind, let’s return to the moral law. The most reasonable assumption is that individuals down through the centuries discovered and rediscovered certain fundamental truths of right and wrong. They didn’t invent them any more than Pythagoras invented the principles governing the right-angled triangle or William Hershel invented Uranus.
The moral law for decent behavior was already there. Men and women merely looked into their own hearts, their own conscience, and there they found a bundle of “oughts.” “Oughts” such as: I ought to keep my promises, even if I would rather not. I ought to tell the truth, even if it makes me look like a fool. I ought to finish my assigned duty, even though I would rather do something else. I ought to remain true to my spouse, even if I am attracted to another. I ought to be honest, even if it would be easy to cheat. I ought to treat the other fellow the same way I would like to be treated, even if I think he is a jerk.
Apparently, none of us made up this moral code of “oughts.” Sometimes it would be rather convenient if they would just go away. But they don’t. They continue to press in on us whether we like it or not.
One thing more, if man created the moral law himself, we would expect to find each society and each civilization developing their own set of basic principles. Our clue is that they did not. While they came up with widely different customs, conventions, and manners, every civilization, past and present, discovered the same bundle of inconvenient “oughts” to direct their lives. Isn’t that curious?
It looks very much like the Outside Source is behind all of it. What does the moral law tell us about this Outsider? Obviously, he’s not a create-’em-and-let-’em-run-amuck sort of being. He’s not a neutral, hands off, passive creator. Instead we find a Moral Agent who has loaded the dice trying to influence our thinking.
Freedom of Choice
He implanted basic instincts in us much as he did the animals. But he gave us something other creatures apparently didn’t receive. This Moral Agent programmed a series of “oughts’ into us to guide our behavior. Clearly, he wants us to keep our promises, tell the truth, do our duty, remain faithful, be honest, and to do to others the same way we would have them do to us.
Notice though, however much the Moral Agent wants us to act in a certain way, he does not force us. He allows us free choice. We can chose to obey the moral law, or we can reject it.
Justice
Before we leave the moral law, I would like to draw your attention to an enigma. Our natural desires in life seem to be satisfied by one means or another. We thirst; water quenches our thirst. We hunger; food quenches our hunger. We want sex; our mate quenches our desire. Our human nature appears to be in close harmony with what life has to offer; so much so, it looks like someone planned it that way.
Give them a desire, then give them a way to satisfy it, seems to be the idea. It keeps us busy doing the things that Whoever-made-us wants us to do. And it all works well, up to a point. Then we run into something that doesn’t quite pan out.
Deeply embedded in our conscience we find a penchant for justice or fair play. We are not neutral observers; we are moral creatures. We want the good guys to win. We like happy endings. And we cheer when good triumphs over evil.
About the only place that happens, however, is at the movies, old movies at that. Real life isn’t nearly as accommodating. In fact, life often seems inherently unfair.
Consider the following: One baby is born to wealth, another to poverty. One is born to a family that loves him, another to a family that abuses him. One is aborted, the other is not. I don’t need to tell you, there is nothing fair about any of that.
Fortune seems to smile on some and frown on others. We see geniuses, and we see idiots; women with great beauty, and women who are downright ugly; people with many talents, and people with no talents at all; and those who are healthy, and those who are sickly or physically deformed. What’s fair about that?
Let’s take it a step further. Some people are endowed with good looks, sound nerves, wit, charm, and a pleasing personality. Popularity and admiration come fairly easy for them. They fit in naturally wherever they go. They don’t need to work at it. It’s a gift. They are the blessed. They are life’s winners.
At the other end of the totem pole, it’s an entirely different story. There we find the homely, dull, slow-witted, timid, warped, lonely people or the passionate, sensual, unbalanced people. By no choice of their own, many are born into homes filled with hatred, petty jealousies, and constant bickering. Others are tormented by sexual perversions or nagged by an inferiority complex. No matter how hard they try, they don’t fit in anywhere. They are life’s losers – unappealing, unloved, and often the object of ridicule and jokes. These folks will be quick to tell you, “life is unfair.” And they are right.
Notice, what we have mentioned so far are traits and circumstances over which we have little or no control. What about those things over with we do have control? Do we find fairness there?
Some people work long and hard, day in and day out, sunup to sundown. Others do nothing they are not forced to do. Both live out their seventy or so years and die. Memory of both soon fades away. All they had, whether plenty or little, is left to someone who did not work for it. Somehow that doesn’t strike us as fair either.
And what of the honest, the faithful, the kind, and the generous? Do they not meet the same fate as the hypocrite, the unfaithful, the cruel, and the greedy? Death overtakes them all, good or bad. And soon they are forgotten. Certainly, that’s not fair. Where are the scales of justice?
But it is even worse than that. You and I know that as often as not, it is the bad man who prospers while the good suffers all kinds of afflictions. The bully wins, and the weak pays the price. The cheater gets off scot-free, while the innocent is accused. Crime all too often does pay. The criminal really does get away with murder. His victim suffers the loss. Justice is stood on its head.
We know life is full of injustices. No one denies it. They spring up everywhere. Our sense of fair play tells us something is fundamentally wrong. Something is out of kilter. We long for a world turned right side up. We want those who have been forced to suffer to receive their just compensation.
We want those who have benefited others to receive their just reward. We want those who have abused others to receive their just punishment. Anything less would be a travesty of justice.
Our True Home
Why then, are we given a longing for justice and forced to live in an unjust world? Has the same Agent who provided so generously for all our other needs, created an elaborate hoax just to frustrate our desire for justice? Or could it be that this world is not our final destination?
Perhaps we were made for a better world, a world without death, suffering and injustice. We might find our ingrained sense of fair play to be in complete harmony with the reality of our true home.
Evolutionists have nothing to say about justice or fair play.
Questions to Consider:
1. If we are nothing more than the chance meeting of random atoms of matter, why are we concerned about justice?
2. One more question: If we are nothing more than the chance meeting of random atoms of matter, how did we ever acquire the intelligence to figure out that we are nothing more than the chance meeting of random atoms of matter?
By: Jerry Richard Boone
