Case Law Details
The Supreme Court has taken a sagacious view of the criticism of judges while dismissing a contempt of court case against Union Minister Kapil Sibal. In fact, it encourages “fair and reasonable” criticism of judgements as judges are not “infallible”. What provoked the petition was a message the minister had written for a souvenir brought out by a group of lawyers of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1995. Some portions of the message were published in a newspaper in such a way that it gave the impression that it was contemptuous of the judiciary. The court could not have overlooked Sibal’s record as a leading lawyer of the Supreme Court until he took to full-time politics. The judgement has gone beyond the narrow confines of the case to lay down the parameters of what constitutes “fair” criticism.
When the court says, “the national interest requires that all criticism of the judiciary must be strictly rational and sober and proceed from the highest motives without being coloured by any partisan spirit or tactics”, few can find fault with it. It is the judiciary, which commands the greatest respect, because, barring the period of Emergency, it has stood like a pillar of strength for the citizens to lean on. And even during the Emergency, there were judges of the calibre of Justice H.R. Khanna, who stood up against the autocratic practices that characterised the period. Even so, there is the indisputable fact that a section of the judiciary is not above board forcing a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to claim that he could not vouch for the integrity of at least 20 per cent of the judges.
When a “courier” arrives at a judge’s bungalow with a huge packet of currency notes as in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, another judge was found to trade in judgements as in the Delhi High Court and yet another is threatened with impeachment as in the Calcutta High Court, one can only quote the bard, “something is rotten in the state of Denmark”. Yet, few dare to take on the black sheep for fear of the Contempt of Court Act, which does not accept even truth as defence. Equally worrisome has been the growing tendency of some judges to make scandalous obiter dicta like “mafia rules Kerala”. Criticism of such questionable tendencies will only enhance the prestige of the judiciary and it should, therefore, be welcomed.
Source: Indian Express
FULL DETAILS OF THE CASE LAW OF KAPIL SIBBAL
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
SC says rational and sobber Criticism of judiciary in national interest”- Much water has been flown on this, but fail to achieve the sense in which hon’ble SC has said it. Not because it is a case of a leading lawyer, but in general. Contrary to this, contempt of court by executive has not much strengthen the role of judicial power by judicial officers under law which results that executive enjoys much powers than the judiciary by not taking decisions at their own level. This shows mountain of cases in different courts are at peak level and to resolve these by judiciary is not a fun.
The great words of the Supreme Court of India will certainly not fall on the deaf ears of the various tribunals (like the ITAT) who still believe that these entities also enjoy the powers of a court of law as such to punish even those-who are not parties before them-for alleged and misconceived contempt of court !