Tantrums of judges betray their lordliness

Much has been written, discussed and debated about the conduct of judges and advocates. However, we many times find the cases of indiscretion by judges and advocates as well; in and outside the courtrooms. Sometimes it is deliberate but more often than not, it because of misunderstanding and ignorance.

There is an Advocate act, which defines and demarcates the duties, rights and limitations of the advocates. Bar Council of India and the Bar Councils of the states derive their strengths and powers from the Advocate Act, 1961. Thus the Bar Council of India and Bar Councils of states are the statutory creations or bodies. On the other hand, judges are governed by the service rules and the code of conduct as formulated by the High Courts from time to time. Even the judges of the Supreme Court of India have framed the code of conduct for themselves regarding the declaration of assets etc. The maintenance of dignity and the decorum, however, largely depends on the particular judge.

As far as the lower judiciary is concerned it has to go by the rules framed by the respective High Courts. The high Courts are vested with supervisory powers over the lower judiciary by virtue of Article 227 of the constitution of India. Under Article 123, the Supreme Court and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the High Courts are ‘the courts of the record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the powers to punish for contempt of court itself’. It is an altogether different whether these powers have given to maintain the majesty of law or satisfy the arrogance and ego of the judges. It has been made abundantly clear that this power is meant to be used against those, who disrespect and disregard the orders or the judgements passed by it. Powers of the contempt court, on the other hand, should very sparingly be used for the disrespect shown to any particularly judge. This is like a sword to be shown and most rarely to be used.

The lower judiciary of the states has to work under the supervision of the High Courts; therefore, it does not have the powers to punish for contempt of itself. If any judge of the lower court considers that somebody has shown disrespect to the court, s(h)e has to write to the concerned High Court making out the case of the Contempt of the Court.

But one generally comes across the judges overstepping the limits of their powers as it has happened on 28th of April in a district court of Dwarka, Delhi. It is alleged that two advocates were trying to browbeat a judge in the courtroom and in the heat of passion and excitement, the judge ordered the police to take the advocates under judicial custody. The reaction was of the strong resentment and in protest the lawyers of all five district courts of Delhi went on strike on 29th April against the misdemeanour of the judge.

There is no doubt, that lot of lawyers behave unscrupulously and that is why; they are taken to task or even punished by the respective Bar Councils but there is no dearth of such judges who are crude, inefficient and uncouth in their behaviour and conduct. Anybody, who is practising in the litigation side, will bear testimony to the fact, that many judges wear chips on their shoulders and throw their tantrums in the court rooms in most ludicrous manner. They behave in highly undignified and unbecoming manner worthy to be condemned roundly.

Bar Associations are supposed to identify such judges and ask them to mend their ways but if they do not heed to their polite suggestions, Bar Associations must take up the matter to the concerned High Court. The High Courts must immediately look into the matter as it concerns to the delicate issue of the relationship between the judges and lawyers. No court can function in the absence of either judge or lawyer and it ought to be understood that they are there to help provide justice to the people. Lawyers and judges both must have to have the commitments for the people and the society. No good judgment can be written without the help of the lawyers and no justice can be had without a sensitive and knowledgeable judge.

Unfortunately, most of the judges suffer from the repulsive arrogance and hardly read or reflect on the laws, the trends and obtaining current atmosphere in the field of law. What is true of such judges is equally true for the lawyers. Therefore, it will be a great service indeed to the cause of justice, if the Bar Associations, Courts, Bar Councils and Judicial Academies organise, from time to time, the workshops and seminars separately and jointly for the training and orientation of judges and lawyers both. Both are considered to be the officers of the court. The value and the dignity of the courts and the majesty of the law can be maintained only when both behave decently, courteously, with mutual respect of each other as well as with litigants. The strike by the lawyers is never welcome but hopefully, this strike will serve some useful purpose.

Shoe Flinging : An Act Most Reprehensible

Some journalists appear to be gripped with the virus, which commands them to become from news provider to newsmaker, that too, not through assiduous efforts but by their cheap and abominable deeds. Thanks to deep and pervasive reach of the media such journalists do get wide publicity, which serves to their perverted desires and goals.

It is a welcome evolution indeed that journalism has metamorphosed from ‘Mission to ‘Profession’. Objectivity becomes the easy causality in missionary journalism. Even today it can be witnessed in the politically or religiously indoctrinated newspapers or magazines. For example, nobody accepts objectivity from the ‘People’s Democracy’, ‘New Age’, ‘Christian Times’, ‘Radiance’, ‘Organiser’, ‘Panchjanya’, or ‘Desabhimani’. These newspapers and magazines purvey certain facts and comments, which reflect to their political or religious lines. Preponderance of missionary zeal is essential in such type of journalism.

Most of the newspapers or magazines in India, however, claim to pursue the independent line. That is why; people give more credence to independent newspapers and magazines. Independence is the key to objectivity and professionalism. In fact, independence, professionalism, objectivity and credibility are interwoven. The less objectively means the less independence and the less professionalism which would ultimately lead to erosion of credibility. There can hardly be two opinions that corrupt/ indoctrinated journalists cause immense damage to the profession. These toxic journalists misuse the forum of newspapers and magazines to sub serve to their own personal interests rather than doing well for the journalism or the society. They sneak into journalism to gain accessibility to the high and mighty or importance persons and capitalise that into terms of money other personal gains. They are no better than serpents of the grass.

We have abounding examples of journalists, who have amassed wealth hundreds or thousands of times more than their known source of their incomes. But hardly any journalist has been caught so far in the net of corruption, primarily because of their connections at the right place. Many journalists have made their profession the springboards to climb in politics to become MPs or MLAs. Journalists have always been known for their notorious habits of free wining and dining but their rapacity for wealth and power is relatively a new passion.

With the advent of electronic journalism the magnitude of economic or other corruption among has increased manifold. Readers and audience are taken for granted by these journalists. Many times fairness is crucified in the subtle manner but often it is done in the most uncouth and crude manner.

Recently, a new trend of flinging shoes has been started by the journalists in the press conferences. This is the most condemnable and unpardonable act on the part of the journalists. A journalist is permitted to attend the conference because he or she is the representative of the newspaper or magazine. And the latter has been given license for dissemination of news or views. This unwritten covenant authorises the journalist to have access even to prohibited places so as they can work for their organisations for the sake of the general public.

But if a journalist uses the forum of the media to vent his/her personal feeling or ire, it is nothing but downright corruption and dishonesty on the one hand, and an act of lunatic behaviour, on the other. Such mentally deranged persons ought not to be defended by any body, particularly by journalists’ community.

Of late, a journalist, Jarnail Singh, working for a Hindi daily Dainik Jagran threw his sneaker at PC Chidambaram, the home minister, in a Press Conference. His misconduct has been wrongly equated with that of an Iraqi Journalist, who chucked his shoes on the American President George W.Bush during his press meet.

What is more distressing is that many journalists, who never get tired of delivering homilies are now trying to defend the egregious misdeed of Jarnail Singh by saying that his cause was right but method was wrong. But the fact is that, neither his cause nor his action was right. Home Minister PC Chidambaram was also wrong in interfering in the process of law from taking its own course by not allowing the police to lodge the criminal case against him.

The Press Conference cannot be the place or the occasion to adopt such nasty methods for obtaining replies from the person, who addresses it. A journalist is well within his/ her right to ask even awkward questions for eliciting information for the benefits of public, because the media have the fiduciary relationship with its readers/ watchers but media person has certainly got no right to enter into unsavoury arguments with the person addressing the conference.

How could Jarnail Singh say that his cause was right? The press-conference was not organised to redress the grievance of any particular person or community. If he was so worked-up with his so-called right cause then he should been to some other place to demonstrate or protest.

Now some people say that Jarnail Singh is a man of cool and composed mind and he did it in the heat of passion. This argument is ridiculous and preposterous. A rapist cannot take the plea to mitigate his crime that he was blind with passion. Tomorrow if some debate or discussion is going on in Parliament or assemblies and if a journalist sitting in the Press gallery becomes angry with the line of argument of the concerned speaker and throws, his chappals on him, can he/she take the shelter of passion for his/her maniac behaviour. Certainly not. A person; who cannot have restrain over his/her feelings, however strong they may be, he/she has not right to be journalist. He/she must be sent to mental asylum for check-up and treatment. That is what should be done with Jarnail Singh. It is good for him and the society both.