One is dismayed to note that the Supreme Court has imposed a fine of Rs.50000 on a petitioner who had filed a public interest litigation regarding the Vodafone judgment. The petitioner, M L Sharma,'s contention is that the Chief Justice had a conflict of interest in hearing the Vodafone case since his son is working for a consultancy firm which advised Vodafone on Hutchison Whampoa transaction.
The court has termed the PIL "highly scandalous, frivolous and irresponsible". One is tempted to say the same about the Court's response. Details of the PIL are not available. Even if the petition were obnoxious, tendentious and mistaken on facts, the Court would have covered itself with glory if it had given reasons for rejecting the PIL rather than fuming at it emotionally. The highest court in the country is also expected to tolerate criticism. There are more mature ways of dealing even with cantankerous criticisms than levying a fine and foul-mouthing the petitioner.
The court has termed the PIL "highly scandalous, frivolous and irresponsible". One is tempted to say the same about the Court's response. Details of the PIL are not available. Even if the petition were obnoxious, tendentious and mistaken on facts, the Court would have covered itself with glory if it had given reasons for rejecting the PIL rather than fuming at it emotionally. The highest court in the country is also expected to tolerate criticism. There are more mature ways of dealing even with cantankerous criticisms than levying a fine and foul-mouthing the petitioner.
1 comment:
It is sad to note that even the Supreme Court Judges do not tolerate criticism. They could not have very explained the situations under which they have found fault with the petitioner. Over dependence on Courts for each and everything may be the reason.
Post a Comment