• Investment World
• eWorld
• Brand Line
• Mentor
• Life
• Brand Quest
• The New Manager
• Smartbuy

Stocks

• Quotes
• SE Diary
• Scoreboard
• Open-End Mutual Fund

Cross Currency

• Rates
  
  

Shipping

• Ports
  
  

Archives

• Yesterday
• Datewise
• Resources
• In Focus
• In Depth
• Events 2007

Group Sites

• The Hindu
• The Hindu ePaper
• Business Line
• Business Line ePaper
• Sportstar
• Frontline
• The Hindu eBooks
• The Hindu Images

All sections of the media all over the country have featured in bold headlines the stinging remarks of the Supreme Court Bench of Justices B. N. Agarwal and G. S. Singhvi castigating the Chief Minister, Mr M. Karunanidhi, the Union Minister of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Mr T. R. Baalu, and others for the delay in the filing of replies to the Court’s notices on the contempt petition of the All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) alleging violatio n of the order of the apex court against bandhs.

The Bench has reportedly used expressions such as ‘detestable’, ‘what type of people are you’ and other demeaning observations of a personal nature, ending with the threat of issue of warrants of arrest against fellow Constitutional functionaries.

The latest episode — by no means the first of its kind — will cause grave disquiet in the minds of those who care for harmonious functioning of the three branches of the government — the executive, the legislative and the judiciary — which are co-equal and coordinate, with no branch claiming for itself a monopoly, or even a greater part, of all the authority and wisdom.

The Supreme Court itself has, from time to time, been emphasising the need for reticence and restraint on the part of judges. Pulling up the Karnataka High Court in a case in which the apex court felt that the High Court had made “sweeping remarks...as though it was a presentation of a paper in a seminar”, it said, “Judicial decorum requires that judgments and orders should confine themselves to facts and legal points... (and) be within bounds of propriety and sobriety.”

In State of UP vs Mohammad Nain (1964), the apex court cautioned the judiciary at all levels against making disparaging remarks against persons and authorities, especially when the party whose conduct was in question was not before the Court or had not had an opportunity to explain or defend himself. Said the Court: “Judicial pronouncements should be judicial in nature, and should not... depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.”

The following excerpt from my article, “Moderation adds to the majesty of law”, published in these columns on October 23, 2000, is as valid today as it was then:

“If there is one quality that can be singled out as the ultimate crown and glory of life on the Bench, it is being known for exercise of judicial reticence….Restraint is all the more imperative because it is not possible for those against whom the Justices direct their ire to reply to them in the same language and at the same level. If Judges have reason for righteous indignation, so do the people at large who have had no relief from unconscionable delays in disposals or even in delivering judgments in cases already heard….

“If (judges) give free rein to their feelings in the manner of laymen in ongoing proceedings, especially in words which detract from the sanctity of the pedestal they occupy, they unwittingly give the impression of playing to the galleries and lowering the stature of the institution itself.

“More and more, such impromptu observations, sometimes….running down other Constitutional functionaries and impairing their effectiveness are becoming a feature of hearings in the Supreme Court itself from which all the rest of the judiciary takes its cue.”

Further, display of temper from the Bench carries with it the risk, at some point, of the Constitutional equals of the Justices exercising the same right to hit back in Parliament or State Legislature giving their own versions of lapses and misdeeds by the judiciary, faulting the apex court for not correcting them. It will be a lose-lose situation for all concerned and a sad day for the nation as a whole.

B. S. RAGHAVAN

More Stories on : Courts/Legal Issues | Politics | Offhand

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line