Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Two recent judgments have raised interesting queries about the infallibility and power of judges and the limits of the judicial process. The first, delivered by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, reversed an earlier decision that had held former Union petroleum minister Satish Sharma guilty of criminal breach of trust for misusing his ministerial powers to allot petrol pumps and gas dealerships from the minister8217;s discretionary quota. While exonerating Sharma of such misdemeanour, it ruled that there had been 8220;errors apparent on the face of the record8221; in the earlier verdict which had resulted in a 8220;serious miscarriage of justice8221;.
The review judgment concerning Satish Sharma not only hinted at the less than meticulous fashion in which the evidence in the case was examined, but found that the court8217;s direction to the CBI to probe into whether Sharma had 8220;committed any other offence8221; was erroneous and could not be sustained. The review judgment, in the process, tacitly acknowledgedthat judges, too, can make mistakes, a possibility that is commonly overlooked, given the extraordinary powers of contempt that has been vested in the judiciary. It should, ideally, have a salutary effect on the functioning of the judiciary in this country by encouraging judges to be more self-critical than they have been thus far. In a recent article on the possible misuse of contempt proceedings, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, the grand old man of the Indian judiciary, even argued that it is wrong to regard judges as being 8220;bulletproof against public criticism based on facts8221;. They also make mistakes, he stated roundly, adding that 8220;hypersensitivity and peevishness have no place in the halls of justice8221;. Even in the face of grave provocation, Iyer cautions the judiciary against being hypersensitive. It is better, he believes, that judges 8220;deflate vulgar denunciation, by dignified bearing8221;.
