Opinion Heartening SC Judgment

Experience has shown that authorities often resort to preventive detention as an easy way out to avoid the burden of conducting thorough investigation and effective prosecution in a regular court of law. A bench of the Supreme Court comprising justices Markandey Katju,SS Nijjar and GS Misra in its recent judgment ruled that when an order of preventive detention is challenged,the crucial question is whether the ordinary law of the land was sufficient to deal with the situation. In the case before the Court,the charge against the detenu was of selling expired drugs after changing their labels. The Court held that relevant provisions in the Indian Penal Code and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act were sufficient to deal with the situation. The Court rejected the State’s argument that the Court should not interfere with preventive detention where serious crimes have been committed. Undeterred,the Court ruled that recourse to preventive detention in the case was illegal and the detention order was struck down. A timely vindication of the precious fundamental right of personal liberty.

Disappointing Decision

President Barack Obama had vowed to close Guantanamo which he had rightly described as a legal black hole which symbolised all that was wrong with the so-called war on terror. Regrettably,there has been rethinking on the subject because of certain legal complications and mounting opposition from both friends and foes in Congress mainly on security grounds. The consequence of the US President’s latest stand will be that certain persons,including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,a self-proclaimed architect of 9/11,and a host of other terrorists will be tried by the military tribunals in camera without adherence to elementary principles of fair trial. The decision was announced on the same day the President declared his plans to stand for re-election. Apparently both electoral and security consideration have impelled the recent decision. The perpetrators of the horrific crime of 9/11 deserve no sympathy. However,what is involved is not personalities but the principle of the Rule of Law. And one test of belief in principles is that you apply them in cases with which you have no sympathy. Or else,human rights and the rule of law become cruel shibboleths.

Colourful Judgment

Foul language is objectionable. However,much depends on the context and the time and place. Words which are routinely used in pubs and youth parties are taboo during dinner at home or seminars at the IIC. But would it be right to inflict the penalty of compulsory retirement on a constable of CISF Unit,IOC Panipat for use of foul language? A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Suresh Kait held that the action was unjustified. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog realistically recognised that jawans communicating with each other liberally resort to words m********,b******** and that it is not uncommon to hear a jawan utter these words. Apart from jawans,these words spontaneously pour forth from the lips of elderly men in clubs to which women are gallantly denied access. The crux of the matter is that literal interpretation should not be placed on these ‘foul’ expressions. The Delhi High Court quashed the penalty imposed on the jawan and directed his reinstatement in service. As rightly observed by Justice Pradeep Nandrajog,“experience of life resolves more than the logic of the law.” A sensible,down to earth colourful judgment.