Today's newspaper makes anything but pleasant reading. The attack on the Governor in the Assembly by members of political parties, assault on a fellow legislator are all indications that the political institutions we have exist in form only. The content seems to have completely disappeared. I find it shocking that elected representatives of the people can exhibit such intolerance and belligerence. The Governor maybe a very bad man, may have some biases that are inconvenient to some, but that does not mean that the office itself is denigrated by attempts of physical assault. It is obvious that the conventions that are supposed to be an integral part of behaviour in a legislature have no relevance any more. It seems fisticuffs are the way to resolve problems. Maybe the legislature can be turned into a boxing ring and boxing duels and their winners should determine the laws of the land. If what the legislators did is not disgusting enough, what a Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has done is even more shocking. The contents of the 8th Chapter of the Sri Krishna Committee have been deemed confidential and have not been disclosed to the people. There has been a petition asking that they be made public. The Solicitor General brought the said chapter in a sealed cover and presented it to the Justice so that he could determine whether its contents could be made public or not. The good Justice, who read it, sealed it and gave it back to the Solicitor General. He later passed a verdict saying that the contents should be made public. Fair enough. People have a right to know. But the comments that accompanied the judgement are a little shocking. He claims that the report is not befitting of the stature of a former Justice of the Supreme Court of India and that it is written in a such a manner that it can be bettered by the front office of a Member of Parliament or the High Command of a political party!!! He also says that it is full of lies. It maybe, but does one member of the judiciary respond to the work of another member this way? In a climate where tempers are high and everything is volatile would such remarks not exacerbate the situation? Why cannot we wait for the report to be made public officially and then comment rather than providing sneak previews like this? It should also be remembered that the Government of India has the right to challenge his decision and if a verdict emerges in a higher court that it is better that it be kept a secret, then what? I am not defending the Governor, or Justice Sri Krishna but only raising questions of propriety of behaviour of people in responsible positions in offices of repute. The actions of the legislators and the inaction of the Executive we can see what those two institutions are like. And due to the comments of the Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court it is now obvious that the Judiciary is also in tatters. If his comments about Justice Sri Krishna are right, then it is obvious that the members of the judiciary are not what we think they are. And if he is wrong in his comments, it still means that the members of the judiciary are not what they are supposed to be. Classic Catch 22. My old teacher Prof. C. P. Bhambri who was a passionate Marxist used to joke that in Bihar the State has withered away without any revolution. This was a reference to Lenin's idea that once classes are dissolved by the communist revolution, the State will wither away. I suppose the same can now be said of Andhra Pradesh, only less wryly perhaps.
This is very true and disturbing. While all of us are reading the paper or not and not bothering - the starkness of the situation is accurately captured in this blog. You write scary stuff !
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading Kartikeya and for the comment too. Things are scary, and that is the truth. Where all this will lead is anybody's guess.
ReplyDeleteSatish: What is even scarier is that people react after reading newspaper reports, and denigrate the judicial process. Take another case: Justice Singhvi and Justice Ganguly of the Supreme Court of India were reported by the emdia to have been passing disparaging remarks about the PMO on the 2G scam issue. Given that there is always the possibility of a constitutional bench reviewing a two judge bench decision in such a case, should the two judges have not made any remarks in the course of the arguments in the court? Or not made remarks that may be deemed to be inappropriate by the current political dispensation? The situation in India, with regard to people's anger against corruption, is quite volatile, even if that volatility is not likely to translate into a situation like in Egypt or Tunisia. So, 'am I to assume that the court should shut up about the asinine arguments raised by lawyers regarding the materials placed before it for consideration? Satish: this particular blog of yours is over the top, and you are now bordering on decrying institutions because the opinions emanating from them are or are not in accordance with your opinions. The case in the High Court, Satish, was based on Article 226 jurisdiction of the High Court. The next level is only by Special Leave Petition to the SCI, which is granted at its discretion. So, your assumption that the High Courts need to defer to a final resolution by the SCI is plain wrong. The High Court necessarily has to deal with such matters as if it is the final judicial body, and exercise its jurisdiction to the fullest extent. The remarks the judge passed as a part of his judicial duties, is very much within his jurisdiction and competence. I will ask you a question, setting aside differences of opinion about our perceptions of the quality of the report by Sri Krishna Committee Report (please note that I have deliberately refrained from saying Justice, because he is a former justice, not a member of judiciary now, and hence his committee report is not that of a judicial body): are you saying that if a High Court Justice were to come to an opinion about the quality of a non-judicial report, he ought not to express it? If your dismay is about the sarcastic tone, then let me, as a lawyer, assure you, that as a routine matter judges express their opinions even more strongly, even in cases that involve sensitive political issues (because there are justiciable issues underlying those politicised issues). Your rant is self-defeating if in the least because you have not explicated what your dismay is exactly about.
ReplyDelete