Punishing companies

The minority dissented on the ground that it is not the judicial function to resort to ‘‘judicial heroics’’ to alter the words of a statute and read ‘‘and’’ as ‘‘or’’. In the picturesque language of Justice Srikrishna ‘‘the Court cannot act as a sympathetic caddie who nudges the ball into the hole because the putt missed the hole. Even a caddie cannot do so without inviting censure and more. If the legislation falls short of the mark, the Court could do nothing more than to declare it to be thus, giving its reasons, so that the legislature may take notice and promptly remedy the situation.’’

Reference to cricket has been made in Supreme Court judgments. This is the first time that golf has figured in judicial dicta.

Parliamentary somnolescence

It is a fond hope that Parliament takes notice of legislative lacunae pointed out by Courts. Sexual harassment of working women at the workplace in our country is pervasive. The Supreme Court in its celebrated judgments in Vishakha and Apparel Export Promotion Council outlawed sexual harassment and laid down guidelines as to what would constitute sexual harassment, the machinery to prevent and punish sexual harassment and other related matters. The Supreme Court was conscious that it was indulging in judicial legislation. Hence it declared that its directions would be binding and enforceable in law until suitable legislation is enacted to occupy the field. Parliament unfortunately has not had the time nor the inclination to enact appropriate legislation.

The need for the institution of Lok Pal to combat corruption in high places is acknowledged by everyone. Yet Lok Pal bills have been doing the rounds since the seventies. For one reason or the other there is no legislation in place. Is it lack of Parliamentary time or lack of political will? Parliament in its Monsoon session must enact long awaited and much needed legislation. The government’s top most priority should be publication of the Naavati Commission’s report with regard to the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots. Dilly-dallying by the government is inexcusable. Is it to let some high-ups off the hook?

Kamasutra in the House of Commons

Parliamentary debates and lively exchanges between members in the UK Parliament are most enjoyable. The famous one is when Lady Astor angered by Churchill’s remarks said ‘‘if I were your wife I would put arsenic in your coffee’’. Churchill retorted, ‘‘if I were your husband I would gladly drink it.’’

In recent debates in the House of Commons about the European Constitution, the Leader of the Opposition, Michael Howard, lambasted Prime Minister Tony Blair about his flip-flop on different issues like the European Union, the Euro currency, the referendum and so on. His final punch line was that one did not know the definite stand of the government on these important issues because ‘‘the Prime Minister takes as many varying positions as there are in the Kamasutra’’. Thus Kamasutra has entered the Hansard. Fortunately no one has objected on the ground of obscenity because of its contents and erotic pictorial representations.

Meaning of words

In a recent television interview with Petroleum Minister Manishankar Iyer, an NDTV journalist used the expression ‘‘bickering’’ between the Left and the UPA. The Minister took exception to that expression. One wonders why. If the Left pulls out of the coordination meetings, stridently complains about deviation from the CMP, and carries out a strike call on account of the rise in the price of petrol and diesel surely that is squabbling, that is what ‘‘bickering’’ is all about. However, forget the dictionaries. The crux of the matter has been summed up by Humpty Dumpty who says in Alice in Wonderland ‘‘when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less. The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things! The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be the master, that is all.’’ On NDTV, it is the journalist who is the master.