Law, Lawyers, Judiciary

[Guest]

<!--emo&:argue--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/argue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='argue.gif' /><!--endemo--> Courting seclusion

Saturday, September 22, 2007
12:01 IST
http://content.msn.co.in/News/National/Nat...07_1201.htm#top
By
Barkha Dutt

New Delhi: If you leave out the magnetic stardom of sportsmen and actors, middle-class India today really has just two heroes — the army and the judiciary.


The army’s original job description was to protect borders, but a demanding country depends on it for everything else too, from rebuilding bridges after a tsunami to keeping the peace when religious riots erupt. And the courts today are seen by most of us as an ally in the crusade against corruption.


So, whether it is a contentious quota policy, pulling off polluting buses off the road or bringing down illegal buildings, we have come to treat the judiciary almost as an alternative mode of governance.


Stung by relentless intervention in what was once their domain, politicians have often objected strenuously to the overweening authority of the judiciary. But the knee-jerk contempt for the neta ensures that the public at large tends to deride these complaints.


Ordinary folk have sometimes devoted decades of their lives getting knocked about from court to court. but even so, they look towards the judiciary as their ultimate gateway of hope.


But the power that comes from playing Chief Arbiter in all our lives has bestowed judges with a near God-like seclusion from scepticism and scrutiny. Just as the believer is not meant to ask for proof at the temple of faith, we are expected not to demand evidence that the men and women who uphold our Constitution have the integrity to do so.


Every institution of India — politicians, journalists and corporate chieftains — comes within the purview of the judiciary but when it comes to auditing their own conscience, judges want everyone else to stay out.


If you have been following the controversy surrounding India’s previous Chief Justice, Y.K. Sabharwal, you will know that four journalists from Mid-Day have been slapped with a prison sentence on charges of contempt of court for their critical reports of him.

Â

Though the journalists are out on bail, the court made it clear that “in the garb of scandalising a retired Chief Justice of India… the image of the highest court has been tarnished”.


The charges against the retired judge are grave and complex. Essentially, he has been accused on two counts. The first allegation was that his verdict on shutting down lakhs of commercial establishments in Delhi benefited his sons, who had business partnerships with mall-owners — presumably the next logical destination for all those whose shops had been closed.


Several lawyers and jurists say Justice Sabharwal shouldn’t have sat in on this particular case because of the obvious conflict of interest. instead, they have claimed that he specifically assigned it to his own court.


Those campaigning against him pointed out that his sons had used the judge’s official residence as their business address. Justice Sabharwal says this was a clerical error that was rectified as soon it came to his notice.


The second allegation relates to land allotted to his sons by the erstwhile Mulayam Singh government in Uttar Pradesh. His detractors claim that four different plots were sanctioned to the judge’s sons by the state government at prices considerably lower than the market rate, while he was handling a case on whether or not Amar Singh’s private telephone conversations could be broadcast.


The judge had ruled against the publication or airing of the CDs, propelling the criticism that once again, a quid pro quo could not be ruled out.

PREV Page1 | Page2