Justice V Ramasubramaniam used to say ‘extraordinary situations call for extraordinary measures’; or was it Justice D V Shylendra Kumar?. Whoever it may be but I would like to enter a rider that such extraordinary measures definitely must not include desperate ones.
It is rather painful, witnessing how the contempt proceedings taken by the High Court against the President and the Secretary of Madurai Bar Association is developing into a complex issue. What is required to be decided within the four walls of the Court-room is allowed to spill out into the corridors and is now oozing out into the streets as well.
It was the Advocates, who hit the Judiciary below the belt first; nothing new as the Advocates were desperate, faced with the contempt. However it would have died down as this is not the first time, the Judiciary is taking a beating. It happened two days before in the Supreme Court, when Prashant Bhusan argued his case l’affaire K G Balakrishnan and a day earlier in Senior Counsel P P Rao’s repartee to the Judges in the case of Government Advocates in Punjab; Justice Katju is not wasting a single day without dragging Chief Justice Katju into mud.
The Supreme Court it seems has learnt the lesson in responding with silence; though embarrassing it may be. Contempt is indeed a legal but extraordinary option, when the Judiciary finds itself pushed to the corner. However in taking such extraordinary measure, if the Judiciary comes down to look for desperate measures, unknown to legal process, it may shake the Institution in the long run.
I fear from what I have heard, read and watched happened during the course of the present contempt proceedings, our High Court in its desperation is leading us into such perilous direction.
One must learn from Sachin, aptly called ‘master’ how to respond to sledging. Any batsman of worth knows bowlers indulge in sledging to destabilize the opponent; Sachin responded by simply refusing to become desperate and no wonder he had the last laugh in all those situations.
One must also learn from history; Indira’s Government, it was said created Bindranwale to counter Akalis but he grew in strength and challenged the state. We neither learn from fiction, how Dr Frankenstein unleashed a monster, which he could not control later.
In encouraging groups as counter measure and allowing unwarranted impleading Petitions in Contempt proceedings, I have no doubt our High Court is adding more players into this contempt cauldron, making the issue even more complex. This may result in a situation that a solution, even it is desired in future by all would become more difficult as the intertwined egos and interests of all players may not allow them to extricate out without bruises.
The contempt proceedings have already been initiated on satisfaction that certain actions of the contemnors had scandalized the authority of the court. High Court, being the complainant and prosecutor can summon anyone, having knowledge over the charges alleged, as a witness to substantiate such charges. I am at the loss to know how come anyone be an impleading Petitioner into this; surely not the legal process thus far I have learnt.
The proceedings of the High Court is not only to tackle a present situation. It will remain in journals as precedents for the future generations to judge on its legality. Hence proceedings of the High Court is not only to render justice for the present but to stand as a law for the future.
Hence the High Court, though it is a handicap has to exhibit a high moral ground in proceeding with contempt; being the prosecutor, the High Court is to uphold the due process and its procedure cannot be seen by the right thinking lawyers as a mere means to an end. I asked those involved what were the incidents, on which the High Court prima facie satisfied that the contemnors have to be prosecuted and no one is able to answer. I saw the contempt notice, which contains no allegation. I understand even after two hearings, still the charges are explicitly drawn in contempt. On the questions posed to the contemnor, the other day, I did not believe when I read it for the first time. All those questions are on something happened either earlier or later to the ‘helmet agitation’ If those incidents give rise to contempt action, it requires another notice; may be aggravating circumstance but not to be considered now.
The above measures, I don’t know on whose advice they were thought of; but am sure will dilute the issues involved and as the day passes the contempt proceedings may lose its steam, end in a stalemate. Whatever be the result, one consequence is certain; our High Court will have one more monster to deal with in future conflicts.
No comments:
Post a Comment