Opinion Whither rule of law

Restraint in judicial language

Lower judiciary is often the butt of scathing criticism by some High Courts. A bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices BS Chauhan and Dipak Misra strongly criticised the tendency to make unwanted observations which according to the Supreme Court instead of enhancing respect for the judiciary makes the judiciary go downhill. Justice Dipak Misra writing judgment for the bench observed that the trend seems to be persistent like an incurable cancerous cell which explodes at the slightest imbalance. He quoted orders of the apex court spanning four decades on this issue and said superior court judges viz. High Court judges must understand the difference between sending a message and issuing a rebuke. The Bench ruled that unwarranted comments on the judicial officer create a dent in the credibility of the judiciary and leads to some kind of erosion and affects the conception of the rule of law. It added that the sanctity of decision making process should not be confused with sitting in a pulpit and delivering sermons which defy decorum. The Supreme Court expunged the Allahabad High Court single judge’s caustic observations against Bulandshahar chief judicial magistrate Amar Pal Singh and ruled that perceptions of fact and application of law may be erroneous but that never warrants the kind of observations and directions issued by the High Court. One hopes the higher judiciary,including the Supreme Court,pays heed to these salutary observations.

War crimes and justice

The wheels of criminal justice system move slowly but they moved decisively when the UN war crimes court in the Hague before whom Liberia’s ex-president Charles Taylor was tried was found guilty. His offence was aiding and abetting war crimes in Sierra Leone during the 1991-2002 civil war by supporting rebel groups in neighbouring Sierra Leone in an effort to seize control of the country’s diamond mines infamously known as ‘blood diamonds’ since the precious stones were sold to fund the country’s bloody civil war. Taylor was sentenced to 50 years in jail. While sentencing,judge Richard Lussick described the crimes in Sierra Leone as some of the most heinous in human history. According to a statement issued by the office of EU foreign policy,the sentence confirms that nobody is above the law and all those who commit crimes against humanity,whether in their own country or another,whether in power or in rebellion,can and will be brought to justice. This is the least that the victims of such crimes deserve. The Court’s landmark judgment and the sentence imposed on Taylor are an effective answer to the cynics’ taunt about the ‘uselessness’ of International Crimes Tribunal.