The classic clash, inevitable in a democracy, seems to be well and truly on. The Supreme Court’s angry remarks against the politicians for their untiring tirade against it are telltale evidence of the simmering feud between the two constitutional pillars. And the gauntlet has been picked and thrown back, too.
Very few outside the motely crowd of politicos would fault the SC for its observations on the quota issue. In fact, while the quota-happy politicos were literally on the mat with their prime vote-catching instrument under threat, there was visible public glee over their discomfiture. The stock of the SC and the people’s faith in it did soar for its forthright declarations. The SC’s outbursts (‘wind up the courts and do whatever you want’) is certain to cut ice with the disillusioned public who would deem all that anger justified. They always love action and fireworks, particularly when they are directed at hated objects.
Aah, but something troubles. Is there also not a nagging feeling that the SC might have over reacted? Should an objective judgement be put under a subjective emotional cloud, by the deliverers themselves? Why smudge a clear verdict even before the ink has dried? So what if the politicians blow hot and hotter? Should the wise men of law be drawn into a brawl with worthless worthies firing from behind privileged barriers as is their wont? Parliaments are meant to be rocked, but a court of law can ill afford to be shaken. If the courts are wound up where will the common man who look upto them as the last resort, go?
The ire of the politicos is directed at the ‘impersonal’ Court, not on the person of the Judges constituting the Bench. In fact, given the prevailing IQ standards of our reps, most may not even know the name of the CJ of the SC, and have joined the chorus without knowing the song. The SC itself has said that the government has not understood the verdict. And going by current trends in politics and society, the future is sure to throw up a surfeit of constitutional questions in sensitive grey areas where the SC’s verdicts could invite even more vicious criticisms. Emotional tit-for-tats are an unwanted diversion from legitimate debate and shows up the judiciary as too sensitive and easily provoked. And worse, such outbursts sound very Parliament-like and the people already have had enough. The SC can spare them the extra agony. Instead, political intolerance should be met with cool conviction. An eye for an eye with an unscrupulous opponent would only blur the distinctions between the Good, Bad and Ugly.
But alas, the SC has jumped into the fray and the die is cast. Now, giving the political devils their due, and for the sake of level playing field, what if one were to shift the arc lights on the judiciary? Self-righteous indignation often ignores the proverbial four fingers pointing inwards. Are there not chinks in the judicial armoury? Yes, these are tricky grounds ridden with minefields called ‘contempt’. After all contempt cover is to the courts what privilege protection is to Parliament. Privilege protects MPs only inside the precincts of Parliament, but judges are protected for their acts even outside the court and not necessarily committed as part of the judicial process. So what is the big difference, we from the self-styled fourth pillar, have often wondered when the shields are so opaque as to ward off our prying eyes. At least with forgiving Speakers like the current incumbent, one can get away with breach of MPs’ privilege, but journos can never ever dream of escaping from a Judge scorned. While the men in black have often reminded the media that even truth is not a defence, those in whites would let pass even falsehoods slung at them. Not that truth pervades today’s media, but we are in the dock even when we accidentally bump into it! In short, judgements and Judges are beyond even reasonable scrutiny and fair criticism, let alone motivated assaults as the one unleashed by the politicians now. So why get agitated when the judiciary is beyond any recourse and a ‘law unto itself’?
There is another chink; a chink that would truly warrant ‘winding up of the courts’ if at all emotions are to be taken seriously. With political corruption topping the charts, judicial corruption hardly attracts people’s attention. There are dime a dozen reports on the alarming levels of grease in the justice machinery, particularly in the grassroots judiciary, which directly impacts the common man for whom SC is a different planet that he can never set foot on. Remember the warrant issued against none less than President Kalam by a Gujarat magistrate after taking a bribe? Who will bell such judicial cats? It would be really sad if politicos were to gain umbrage at judicial corruption and play saints. That would tantamount to giving the devil more that its due. For, can anything be more tragic than allowing the politicos to seize the moral high ground and quote the scriptures? At least for that, the judiciary needs to set its own house in order, voluntarily, tolerantly and most important unemotionally.
Even judicial activism could be justified under some circumstances. But judicial emotionalism, never! That blind-folded lady who is present at every court without summons conveys exactly that! Thankfully she is not gagged, so those seated near her can hear her too, provided they lend a ear!
e-mail the writer at [email protected]