IN DEFENCE OF JUDICIARY

Judiciary deals with and justice pertains to specifie cases and an individual’s past,

present and repute have nothing to do with justice and judiciary, as for as it does not

entail with the case under adjudication to surface the truth. Judiciary, in its present

system, can not bother about a person’s history and other attributes as much as how his

particular act wronged an aggrieved party. Judging the judgement of the judiciary extra

muros of this scope is a great disservice to the judiciary and the people whose right’s

cardinal guardian is the judiciary. After all, wrong committed is wrong whether it is

committed by a person of honesty and integrity or by a person sans the virtues. The

reason that a wrong is committed by a person of honesty and integrity, does not abate the

incisiveness of the injustice to the wronged party. In the circumstances, berating

judiciary for punishing a person for committing a wrong, just because the person enjoys

a good reputation, is travesty of reasonableness. It is in fairness to presume that the

judiciary which is posted of all aspects of a disputed issue for years, studied them in pro

rata importance before pronouncing its judgements in all its variance. Such a faith in

judiciary is sine qua non until myriad slip in part of the judiciary in major cases of

national importance disturb the national conscience at all strata to prove, sine dubio, that

the judiciary no more remains the cardinal dispensor of justice. Taking judiciary to task in

other circumstances on the basis of punishment awarded to an individual or a blessed

section of the society for a proved wrong as the judiciary sees it or for the quantum of

punishment awarded as the judiciary sees it in its wisdom as right vis a vis the injustices

heaped upon the plebeian everyday in India by various government bodies and civil
servants sans an easy recourse for justice and for that reason, accepted in mute suffering,

is height of unbalanced appropinquation in public affairs.

When judiciary, particularly the highest seat of judiciary in the country, decides

the quantum of punishment to be awarded for a wrong, it keeps in mind the gravity of

the wrong, mens rea, suffering undergone by the petitioner, the message of the judiciary

in the circumstances to the public at large, dignity of the judiciary and the interests of the

nation and its people. Judiciary is a professional body to consider all these aspects

before passing its judgement. When so many aspects are in stake, just the dignity of a

privileged individual or section f society cannot be a criterion for relaxing the quantum

of punishment. Anybody arguing against judicial pronouncement because of sympathy

for a privileged individual or section may not be doing his public service in excelsis.

Often, judicial pronouncements are commented upon for using diverse yardsticks

in awarding the quantum of punishment for the same wrong at different times. Such

comments are based on wrong notion of judiciary as a linear punishing apparatus.

Judicial function at no time, even in ancient India, was limited to the simplistic job of

equating the quantum of a wrong with the quantum of punishment. Indian judiciary was

and in its western heritage of present days is, always creative in its dispensation of justice

and takes causes and effects and overall interests of the public in its administration of

justice. It is in the interest of the administration of justice and the system of government

to leave the matter at it with liberty to the judiciary to compute more suo, the quantum
of punishment to be awarded on its own wisdom rather than shattering the public

confidence on the judicial system with comments based on clouded thinking.

Judiciary is blamed of activism. A change in the thinking of Indian judiciary is

patent these days. But, it is not activism. It is the process of judiciary coming to its own.

It is the process of Indian judiciary abrading itself from its long gratuitous slumber, at

last. What we had was a dormant judiciary, pronouncements of which could be easily

ignored and ensuing contempt proceedings could be staved off by obtaining an innocuous

warning. In government circles, judicial pronouncements had become a matter of choice.

Even the lowest of the low in government circles treated court orders with contempt.

In the process justice suffered. In the process hoi polloi whom the judiciary has

to protect from injustices heaped upon them by the mighty, suffered. But, judiciary was

complacent about its dormancy and impervious to the sufferings of the wronged people.

In government circles, a situation has reached wherein it is generally accepted that

pleading with judiciary for justice against injustices in service matters bring nothing more

than waste of time and money, for, court judgements at all levels of legislature-executive

combine are circumvented as a rule rather than as an exception and everybody knows

that no justice can be expedited by any court of law. It is a good tide of events that the

judiciary has awakened now. It started to see its responsibilities to the common man

more clearly and started to assert selon les regles. The nation should have celebrated this

change for better rather than a few opinion leaders rousing public opinion against

judiciary for punishing some who treated judicial pronouncements with scarce respect
and ignored the commands of the rule of law to further suffer wronged parties in pursuit

of the deplorable tradition of ignoring justices and fairness in administration.

An awakened judiciary has to break a new path to show that what was happening

to judicial pronouncements was not right. It has to choose a time-may be yesterday or

today to tomorrow or someday to do this. It chose a day and acted to show the gravity

and seriousness of its judgements. In the circumstances, questioning the judiciary’s will

on the basis of why today, why not yesterday and why not tomorrow, is rather

preposterous, for such a change in the judiciary’s approach either yesterday or tomorrow

can be posed with the same doubts. And certainly judiciary cannot continue with its

sedentary responses for contempt of its judgements for the fear of breaking the path of

dormancy of old times even after being awakened to its footle. None should fault the

judiciary for what it is doing.

Another question strikes about the bourasque roused while judiciary punished

somebody for committing wrong is why the same responses not raised about those

punished persons while consciously ignored doing justice to wronged persons even on

orders of the judiciary and tried to perpetuate the sufferings of the wronged persons.

Such disparities of approach to sufferings of people do not go asey bien with public

interests.

Judiciary proceedings of modern days are based on perspicaciously laid-down

rules that give more than adequate scope for all the concerned parties to explain, provide
evidences and defend themselves before being judged by the judiciary as responsible for

wrongs. Any judicial proceeding involves a petition of wrong committed, persons who

allegedly committed wrong and the judiciary to adjudicate the matter. Once commission

of a wrong is a res judicata, judiciary may be called to judge who committed the wrong.

On the strength of the facts and figures provided to it by various parties. All the

concerned parties are ad libitum to show before the judiciary how and why they are not

responsible for the wrong indubitably committed. If somebody fail to defend themselves

to the satisfaction of the judiciary by parting relevant information at their possession,

even after judiciary, called them to do as judicial procedure lays down, the people are

doing so at their own peril and responsible for the consequences of the judiciary’s

ultimate findings. The judiciary cannot be held responsible for the glitches of the

concerned parties at all. The concerned parties are free to exercise their option either to

own responsibility for the wrong under issue or to show to the judiciary, under what

circumstances they were forced not to do full justice as judiciary thinks it had to, even

though such revelations put them and other concerned persons in difficulties, judiciary

cannot be blamed for passing orders against persons who fail to come clean before it,

even after being called to do it.

What is called as activism in judiciary has come as a blessing to India. The

process may more appropriately be called as creative judiciary and will certainly do a lot

of good to India, its people, its judiciary and its system of government. Rather than

advocating sticking to the old granny’s back, Indian opinion leaders including
intellectuals, press and electronic media must support judiciary to shed its lethargy and

come actively to perform its sacrosanct responsibility of reigning in pandemic injustice in

Indian society. It is a wonder that Indians are in reverse gear while its judiciary rose to

its constitutional responsibility.