Objective criticism isn146;t contempt

Chief Justice Potti propounded the concept of contempt jurisprudence with great wisdom, while deciding a contempt petition against Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, who in a speech had criticised the functional shortcoming of the courts in India: 8220;An erudite Judge illumines the pages of law reports. He earns the respect and admiration of the members of the bar and the bench. The legal fraternity may remember him as his reputation survives to posterity. But rarely is such a Judge widely known outside the world of law8230;V.R. Krishna Iyer is known and respected by the public of this country. His tenure of office as a Judge of this Court, later as a member of the Law Commission and finally as a Judge of the Supreme Court has been marked by a distinction that singles him out from the rest of his colleagues. His decisions evince a new approach to law and new role for the Judge. Many a good Judge has come and gone having performed his duty with dedication and integrity, as good Judges are expected to do, leaving a mark of his own and an imprint of his individuality but giving no room for anyone to raise his eyebrows at him at any time on account of infringement of traditional behaviour and infringing states qup decorum. While leaving a distinct mark of his personality in all that he did Sri V. R. Krishna Iyer did challenge established traditional values and approaches and opened new vistas of thought and action to promote the social engineering process in this country8221;.

Justice Potti so beautifully welcomed the constructive criticism of the judiciary by Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer and amply indicated, in the process, that objective criticism must be encouraged. He was not alone in this. Justice Frankfurter once said 8220;the need is great that court is criticised, but just as great that they will be allowed do this duty8221;.

Free speech is a fundamental right, so too free access to justice. To strangle both these freedoms because courts are allergic to any kind of criticism will be nothing but judicial totalitarianism.

India and England have produced a long list of outstanding judges. They have not only welcomed objective criticism but also encouraged the same. The common law is entirely a product of their intellect and contains some of the most elegant expressions of thought to be found in the literature of the world. English judges outlawed slavery long before Parliament got round to it. The judgements of Indian judges on environmental law are outstanding 8212; some of them among the best in the world 8212; and have become the cornerstone of environmental law.

In conclusion let us examine a paragraph from a Supreme Court judgement in the Arundhati Roy matter, wherein the Supreme Court 8212; by pronouncing the symbolic punishment of a day8217;s sentence to Roy, made it clear in unequivocal terms that it is not averse to the fair criticism as long as it is done in good faith and in public interest: 8220;Fair criticism of the conduct of a Judge, the institution of the judiciary and its functioning may not amount to contempt if it is made in good faith and in public interest. To ascertain the good faith and the public interest, the Courts have to see all the surrounding circumstance including the person responsible for comments, his knowledge in the field regarding which the comments are made and the intended purpose sought to be achieved. All citizens cannot be permitted to comment upon the conduct of the Courts in the name of fair criticism which, if not checked, would destroy the institution itself.8221;

The writer is an advocate in the Bombay High Court