Apology on Discrimination

Supreme Court apologized on its decision to have “special court” in the cases leprosy patients were involved. While leprosy had been believed to be infectious in Japan, its infectiveness was proved to be extremely weak at least in 1960. Nevertheless, special courts kept on being held thereafter. This discrimination apparently harmed human dignity, which Constitution of Japan guaranteed to the people. But, Supreme Court did not admit its unconstitutionality.

There was a fundamental discrimination in Japanese society on leprosy patient, which showed unusual shape in the face or body. The government legislated Leprosy Prevention Act in 1931 without any scientific basis and the patients were quarantined in national sanatoriums. Special courts were set at those sanatoriums for 95 times between 1948 and 1972. In the special courts, judges took on white coat like medical doctors would do and treated documents with chopsticks.

Court Act allows judicial courts to have special court, if it were really needed. The final report of Supreme Court admitted that special courts in leprosy sanatorium was set as irrationally discriminative treatment and illegal. “We deeply regret our wrong treatment harming humanity and dignity of the patients and apologize to them,” said the report. It was highly unusual for Supreme Court to admit and apologize on its illegality of its treatment of law.

However, the final report did not touch unconstitutionality. Supreme Court disclosed the conclusion of a consultative committee of experts on this case, which found special court to have violated the Constitution of Japan. The report argued that special court was not completely closed to the public, not violating the requirement of open court, because announcement of setting special court was raised on the entrance of the sanatorium. On equality under law, the report avoided its decision. Supreme Court believed that investigation on unconstitutionality of each case might undermine independence of judges that Constitution also guaranteed.

The patients were frustrated with the attitude of Supreme Court. The legislative and executive branches of Japanese government has already admitted unconstitutionality of quarantine policy and apologized to the patients. “Supreme Court that should be the guard of constitution is too late in taking action, while the Diet or the government had admitted its mistake,” said a patient in Okayama.

It is possible that Supreme Court had to maintain its dignity as the guard of constitution. But, apology in half way may cause further skepticism on sincerity to the sovereign people.