The articles, “The chilling effect of criminal contempt” and “A motorcycle and the art of court management” (Editorial page, both July 28), were enriching, enlightening and entertaining. While the two writers have subtly and wittingly argued that the Supreme Court of India show large-heartedness and magnanimity in dropping its decision to commence contempt proceedings against lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan, the acerbic and remarkably bold Editorial (July 28) has emphatically called for revisiting the idea of ‘scandalising’ in contempt law and ushering in judicial accountability. Those who matter in the judiciary could heed such advice, which would only enhance the image and reputation of the top court and our judicial system. After all, admiration and respect are earned, not ordered.
C.G. Kuriakose,
Kothamangalam, Kerala
The best way any person or organisation can improve is take in criticism with open ears. This applies to the judiciary too. If the judiciary takes on government officials for contempt proceedings for violating orders on environmental issues and other public issues, faith and respect for it would increase manifold. Also, the western world is more liberal towards accepting criticism. There is even a judge in the U.S. who telecasts all his court proceedings over social media. The judiciary should analyse the best practices currently followed by different countries in delivering efficient and timely justice and set in motion judicial reforms.
Shree Vathsan K.S.,
Chennai
The subject highlighted in the articles has only ended up sharpening the focus on the key issues — the huge number of pending cases and delayed justice. One only wishes that the Indian judiciary has an answer to this soon.
Ashica Ayyappa,
Masinagudi, The Nilgiris
The hullabaloo over the Supreme Court’s suo motu initiation of contempt of court proceedings against the lawyer-activist, Prashant Bhushan, seems unwarranted. The outrage against the top court’s action has sidestepped the nuance of context and seeks to paint the court as intrinsically intolerant. To be fair, there has been no dearth of criticism directed against the Supreme Court’s functioning and its judgments in recent years. They hauled no critic before the court for scandalising the judiciary because the dissent had no underlying motives other than a democratic expression of different perceptions. The Court seems to believe that the lawyer-activist’s ‘offensive’ tweets are part of insidious attempts to prejudge the Supreme Court’s verdicts in important cases through covert and overt campaigns. We cannot expect the judges to ignore attempts to undermine the court’s independence and authority and to bully the judges into delivering preferred verdicts, however subtle the campaigns may be.
V.N. Mukundarajan,
Thiruvananthapuram