Truth shall prevail

Strange that at a time when MPs, led by the Speaker, have been so exercised over the question whether parliamentary discipline is amenable to judicial scrutiny, only 30 Lok Sabha members found it worthwhile to witness jurisprudence history being made. What this says about the legislature is clear. What this says about the judiciary needs careful understanding. That truth can now be a valid defence in contempt of court cases 8212; the Rajya Sabha is expected to add its assent to the Lok Sabha8217;s 8212; does not at all imply that we have seen innumerable unacceptable interpretations of contumacious conduct. Thanks in main to the Supreme Court, even a contempt law long deemed inadequate didn8217;t become a frequently used judicial blunt instrument. Now that there8217;s formal protection for any party questioning judicial issues on the basis of demonstrable truth, everyone stands to benefit.

Some of our most able jurists have lamented that the business of dispensing justice is not as immune from the surrounding system as it must be. Those who look at this issue can now pursue their inquiries with the knowledge that as long as they get their facts straight, the law is on their side. The judiciary, as many judges with unimpeachable integrity have argued, will gain possibly the most. Whereas the old contempt law wasn8217;t really helpful in making even demonstrably true findings actionable, once the new law comes into force truth can not only be a shield but also a searchlight. Our judiciary, especially the higher reaches of it, is possibly our most resilient institution. It now has a law that will back the concern and efforts of our best judges.

As for questions about the provision that truth be in public interest to be valid as a defence, we must recognise first that a paradigm shift has happened. Second, matters will become clearer 8212; basically, the issue whether the motive of the party establishing the truth is relevant 8212; once the new contempt rule is interpreted in practice. When is, after all, truth not in public interest?