Justice Arun Mishra said in a function that "under the stewardship of internationally acclaimed visionary Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India was committed to constitutional obligations and was responsible and most friendly member of the international community."
Predictably, Mishra's utterance has been excoriated by legal luminaries like Justices (retired) A.P.Shah, R.S.Sodhi and P.B.Sawant. Their contention is that Mishra has sent a wrong message to other judges and that a person who expresses such a view about the executive head cannot be neutral in cases involving the executive.
Has Justice Mishra erred in voicing his opinion about the Prime Minister? The judge also said, "We thank the versatile genius, who thinks globally and acts locally, for his inspiring speech." One may also argue that this is indulgence in hyperbole. There is however a distinction between correctness or otherwise of a view on the one hand and the right to express that on the other.
The only consequence that automatically follows is that in case there is a petition questioning constitutional propriety of any action of Modi, Mishra would be well advised to recuse himself in the case. In this regard the judge's record is less than exemplary. In an ongoing petition in the Supreme Court regarding land acquisition, Justice Mishra chose not to recuse himself though a judgement earlier delivered by him is a subject of the case. (In our legal system, recusal is left to the discretion of the concerned judge.)
It is easy to criticise a judge for what he says. It is not possible though to accuse a judge for an opinion he may hold which he never expresses. When a judge is vocal about his views, we are at least aware of his propensity. In this sense, we ought to welcome judges expressing their views frankly. We cannot deny the judges their freedom of expression in our enthusiasm for judicial restraint.
We may never know whether a judge who praises a minister is ipso facto biased. At the same time, we expect the judge to keep his predilections away while pronouncing a judgement. Are we expecting superhuman behaviour from a human judge?
Predictably, Mishra's utterance has been excoriated by legal luminaries like Justices (retired) A.P.Shah, R.S.Sodhi and P.B.Sawant. Their contention is that Mishra has sent a wrong message to other judges and that a person who expresses such a view about the executive head cannot be neutral in cases involving the executive.
Has Justice Mishra erred in voicing his opinion about the Prime Minister? The judge also said, "We thank the versatile genius, who thinks globally and acts locally, for his inspiring speech." One may also argue that this is indulgence in hyperbole. There is however a distinction between correctness or otherwise of a view on the one hand and the right to express that on the other.
The only consequence that automatically follows is that in case there is a petition questioning constitutional propriety of any action of Modi, Mishra would be well advised to recuse himself in the case. In this regard the judge's record is less than exemplary. In an ongoing petition in the Supreme Court regarding land acquisition, Justice Mishra chose not to recuse himself though a judgement earlier delivered by him is a subject of the case. (In our legal system, recusal is left to the discretion of the concerned judge.)
It is easy to criticise a judge for what he says. It is not possible though to accuse a judge for an opinion he may hold which he never expresses. When a judge is vocal about his views, we are at least aware of his propensity. In this sense, we ought to welcome judges expressing their views frankly. We cannot deny the judges their freedom of expression in our enthusiasm for judicial restraint.
We may never know whether a judge who praises a minister is ipso facto biased. At the same time, we expect the judge to keep his predilections away while pronouncing a judgement. Are we expecting superhuman behaviour from a human judge?
No comments:
Post a Comment