Dignity of court lies in its conduct and restraint
DECCAN CHRONICLE. | NARASIMHAN VIJAYARAGHAVAN
Published Apr 29, 2018, 3:50 am IST
It was a befitting response, becoming of the majesty of the court, and the high constitutional offices, held by the Judges.
Madras high court
Chennai: Last working day, before the Court went on vacations. As the First Bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Mr. Justice Abdul Quddus took their seats, a practising lawyer of the Madras High Court submitted, "Mi Lords, in the wake of your decision to dismiss the writ petitions filed to declare the seats of 11MLAs belonging to the "OPS faction" vacant, for their defiance of the whip issued by the EPS led dispensation, at the time of the confidence vote, local politicians have expressed their dissent in disparaging terms, tarnishing the dignity of the Court in the eyes of the public.
They have attributed bias and self-interest to the court. Hence, it may be a fit case to initiate suo motu contempt action".
The unassuming, unperturbed Chief Justice, smilingly responded, "Counsel, we are least concerned with such comments. We have done our duty, to the call of our conscience. We bow to the law and Lord Almighty alone. We are sure that the people of Tamil Nadu are well aware of our credibility and conduct. We decline your request. Call the first case."
It was a befitting response, becoming of the majesty of the court, and the high constitutional offices, held by the Judges. They were near dismissive and disdainful of the 'contemptuous expressions', not because they did not care for the majesty of the court or the dignity of the positions they held but because they cared for it more. It was a veritable slap on the faces of those who had attributed bias to the decisions of the Court.
Those who said what they were stated to have said, knew not the nuances of law, which was well beyond their ken. It was their simplistic belief, that while in the case of Pondicherry MLA's cause, the same Bench had held the Speaker's decision ultra vires, in the case of TN Assembly Speaker's failure to act, they chose to treat the decision of the court as biased.
The Court can never take the place of the Speaker in the name of judicial review, it had ruled. To those trained in law and brought up on its discipline, both the decisions were aligned with constitutional norms and propriety. But to those untrained in law, with political leanings at heart, the decisions sounded anachronistic. Most unfortunate that the common man was fed with such unfair criticism, imbued with contempt.
The Judges have held their own, by not yielding to the request. It has always been so and it shall have to be so. Just hark back to the recent Loya judgment of the First Bench of the Supreme Court, authored by Justice Chandrachud. In a brilliant exposition on the magnanimity of the Courts to downsize those in contempt, he said, no matter that the arguments of those on the side of petitioner and interveners were sure ammunition for a contempt call, the Court was too high to fall and would rather ignore, as its 'dignity lay in its conduct and performance in public eye' and not in the embrace of sword.
In the face of Spycatcher verdict, upholding an injunction to ban the publication of the work relating to affairs of MI5 Intelligence Unit, a London tabloid carried the upside down pictures of the Judges, with a bold column headline" You Fools"- the Judges smilingly responded, " Our view is in the judgment. We respect the views of the newspapers in the name of free speech". That was a tall order response for a below-the-belt comment.
Lord Denning put it thus, "All we could ask is that those who criticise us will remember that, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy. Still less into political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication". This, after Mr. Quentin Hogg, had said, "Denning is an ass".
Closer home, Chief Justice Gajendragadkar, felt, "Wise judges never forget that the best way to sustain the dignity and status of their office is to deserve respect, from the public at large by the quality of their judgments, the fearlessness, fairness and objectivity of their approach, and by the restraint, dignity and decorum, which they observe in their judicial conduct".
We saw it in abundance in the cryptic response from the Chief Justice Indira Banerjee. TN salutes you, Madam. The Court may have conducted itself with utmost restraint. What of the political class? Is it not time for them to "talk and act to deserve our respect in their restraint?" But, as Justice Krishna Iyer said, "Need to unsheathe the sword can never be ruled out. It lies in the mouths of the contemnors." Need we say more?
DECCAN CHRONICLE. | NARASIMHAN VIJAYARAGHAVAN
Published Apr 29, 2018, 3:50 am IST
It was a befitting response, becoming of the majesty of the court, and the high constitutional offices, held by the Judges.
Madras high court
Chennai: Last working day, before the Court went on vacations. As the First Bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Mr. Justice Abdul Quddus took their seats, a practising lawyer of the Madras High Court submitted, "Mi Lords, in the wake of your decision to dismiss the writ petitions filed to declare the seats of 11MLAs belonging to the "OPS faction" vacant, for their defiance of the whip issued by the EPS led dispensation, at the time of the confidence vote, local politicians have expressed their dissent in disparaging terms, tarnishing the dignity of the Court in the eyes of the public.
They have attributed bias and self-interest to the court. Hence, it may be a fit case to initiate suo motu contempt action".
The unassuming, unperturbed Chief Justice, smilingly responded, "Counsel, we are least concerned with such comments. We have done our duty, to the call of our conscience. We bow to the law and Lord Almighty alone. We are sure that the people of Tamil Nadu are well aware of our credibility and conduct. We decline your request. Call the first case."
It was a befitting response, becoming of the majesty of the court, and the high constitutional offices, held by the Judges. They were near dismissive and disdainful of the 'contemptuous expressions', not because they did not care for the majesty of the court or the dignity of the positions they held but because they cared for it more. It was a veritable slap on the faces of those who had attributed bias to the decisions of the Court.
Those who said what they were stated to have said, knew not the nuances of law, which was well beyond their ken. It was their simplistic belief, that while in the case of Pondicherry MLA's cause, the same Bench had held the Speaker's decision ultra vires, in the case of TN Assembly Speaker's failure to act, they chose to treat the decision of the court as biased.
The Court can never take the place of the Speaker in the name of judicial review, it had ruled. To those trained in law and brought up on its discipline, both the decisions were aligned with constitutional norms and propriety. But to those untrained in law, with political leanings at heart, the decisions sounded anachronistic. Most unfortunate that the common man was fed with such unfair criticism, imbued with contempt.
The Judges have held their own, by not yielding to the request. It has always been so and it shall have to be so. Just hark back to the recent Loya judgment of the First Bench of the Supreme Court, authored by Justice Chandrachud. In a brilliant exposition on the magnanimity of the Courts to downsize those in contempt, he said, no matter that the arguments of those on the side of petitioner and interveners were sure ammunition for a contempt call, the Court was too high to fall and would rather ignore, as its 'dignity lay in its conduct and performance in public eye' and not in the embrace of sword.
In the face of Spycatcher verdict, upholding an injunction to ban the publication of the work relating to affairs of MI5 Intelligence Unit, a London tabloid carried the upside down pictures of the Judges, with a bold column headline" You Fools"- the Judges smilingly responded, " Our view is in the judgment. We respect the views of the newspapers in the name of free speech". That was a tall order response for a below-the-belt comment.
Lord Denning put it thus, "All we could ask is that those who criticise us will remember that, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy. Still less into political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication". This, after Mr. Quentin Hogg, had said, "Denning is an ass".
Closer home, Chief Justice Gajendragadkar, felt, "Wise judges never forget that the best way to sustain the dignity and status of their office is to deserve respect, from the public at large by the quality of their judgments, the fearlessness, fairness and objectivity of their approach, and by the restraint, dignity and decorum, which they observe in their judicial conduct".
We saw it in abundance in the cryptic response from the Chief Justice Indira Banerjee. TN salutes you, Madam. The Court may have conducted itself with utmost restraint. What of the political class? Is it not time for them to "talk and act to deserve our respect in their restraint?" But, as Justice Krishna Iyer said, "Need to unsheathe the sword can never be ruled out. It lies in the mouths of the contemnors." Need we say more?
No comments:
Post a Comment