SC scores a self-goal!

The SC is not a sacrosanct or divine body. As long as there is no threat or initiation of violence, they too can be criticised. Maybe the criticism is wrong or unfair or even biased, but that cannot be the basis for a contempt of court charge. SC judges are as human as anyone else and as prone to errors as anybody else. What is expected from them is impartial interpretation pf the law and impartiality, not perfection.
Medicine is one of the most noble professions on earth. Doctors save lives, but we do criticise them and even sue them in court for negligence and malpractice, don’t we? And sometimes even frivolously! So what is so sacred about SC Judges that they should be put on a pedestal and worshipped?! They are human and open to folly too.
Secondly, it would be better to offer counter arguments point by point instead of immediately using adjectives and name calling. Not everybody who has a contrary opinion has malintentions or is against the country or wants to harm. A democracy flourishes only when criticism is welcome and open to discussion and rebuttal.
The essence and magic of a democracy is that everybody has the right to be wrong all the time! 
To me, the SC is just eroding its own majesty by paying undue attention to petty criticisms when there are so many pressing issues raging in the country. This seems to be a self-goal, IMHO of course.

2 comments / Add your comment below

  1. SC functions within a framework of law as per the constitution of a country. If a citizen, who himself is a guardian of law, under the guise of liberty and freedom of expression chooses to criticize the same constitution, then the SC can handout punishment under the same rule of law existing in the constitution.

    How can we differentiate one as freedom of speech and the other as excess use of powers. Power is conferred on the SC by the country to uphold law & order. If all of those receiving punishment from the SC choose to go public to be critical and criticize the house, and say “My conscience is clear. What I said stands. I am at liberty to say what I feel. But I will not give the right to the judge to judge me under the same law.” And such a contradictory statement coming from a advocate where he has taken oath to uphold law truthfully.

    It is like “if I loose I will criticize, and if I win then I have the full confidence.” Isn’t this double speak and double standard?

    If we allow this there will be 95% chance all loosers will start criticism against SC. If this is allowed, it can reduce SC to a level of mockery. It will erode the the sacrosanct status of the house. Over a period majority of the citizens will look at SC as a house of jokers. Only anarchy will prevail. To avoid this, the status of supreme is given to this court. The judges who rule there are the final upholders of law. They are beyond criticism. Given the stature of hallowed, a holy status, beyond criticism. Respect the judgement. Accept the ruling gracefully.

  2. Hello sir,
    Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate your taking out the time to reply. I respectfully beg to differ though.
    In my humble opinion, there is no institution in the world that can be considered so sacrosanct and infallible that it cannot be criticized. The SC is made up human beings like us, much more learned and knowledgeable, but human beings nonetheless. They are as prone to errors and as flawed as any of us. But that is okay – the SC is supposed to be impartial, not perfect. But that does make the institution and its decisions unquestionable. That kind of power is usurped only by Kings, Tyrants and Despots. I would not like to give so much power to anybody. There is nothing in the Constitution either that gives them so much power.
    Secondly, I would like to quibble on the statements and thoughts that you have ascribed to Bhushan. At no point did he say that the SC cannot judge him. In fact, the SC has already judged him and he has accepted it. Also, he has openly stated that he will cheerfully accept any sentence that the SC metes out to him. He has stood his ground but has not been defiant nor has he questioned the right and authority of the court. So I am not sure why you are attributing such statements to him like “…I am at liberty to say what I feel. But I will not give the right to the judge to judge me under the same law.”
    Thirdly, Bhushan has presented 2 affidavits to the court with evidences which the court did not bother to read fully before judging him. Please note that what Bhushan has said about other judges is nothing new – it has already been said by other judges of the Supreme Court themselves.
    Fourthly, the Supreme Court has always been regarded with respect in this country because of the preeminence of highly esteemed judges that constitute it. This is despite many, many decisions that many people have not agreed with from time to time. On the whole, the SC has always held its head high and Indians have been legitimately proud of that institution since Independence days. Even today, there are many more people who support the court than stand with Bhushan. This being the case, to say that just because one man questioned the court, the whole country will suddenly start questioning the majesty of the SC is an exaggeration beyond reason and that does not have any merit or logic!
    Lastly, if what Bhushan did was a crime, let the SC sentence him. He is not stopping them. He has welcomed and will accept it gladly. Why are they dithering now? Why should they repeatedly ask Bhushan to apologize when he is clearly refusing to? The fact of the matter is that they are unsure of what law Bhushan has breached and therefore don’t know on what basis they are going to sentence him. Justice Mishra will retire next week. After that, I am sure this embarrassing case will be made to go away with some face saving gesture!
    This is all in my humble opinion, of course.
    Thank you once again for your comments.

Let this not remain a one-way conversation! Your opinions are welcome, especially if you don't agree!!