‘Basant’s statement an interference with Supreme Court judgment’
The remarks made by former High Court judge R. Basant, who was part of the division bench of the Kerala High Court that acquitted 35 of the 36 accused in the Suriyanelli case, have drawn flak from jurists and legal community.
Coming down heavily on Mr. Basant, former Supreme Court judge V.R. Krishna Iyer demanded a public apology from him. Mr. Iyer said he should withdraw his remarks and tender an apology to the public, especially to the women community in the state. Mr. Basant’s subsequent statement that he made the remarks during a private conversation and did not know that it was being recorded did not have any credibility, Mr. Iyer said.
In footage televised by a Malayalam TV channel on Saturday, Mr. Basant was shown as saying, “She was used for child prostitution. Child prostitution is not rape. It is immoral. I am not blaming her... It is all there in my judgment.” He adds, “Here is a girl who is not normal, who is deviant. All this is there in the judgment.”
B. Rajendran, secretary of the State committee of All India Lawyers Union, termed Mr. Basant’s remarks an interference with the Supreme Court judgment, therefore amounting to contempt of court. He alleged that they might have been made with the “ulterior motive to influence the mindset of the present Division Bench of the Kerala High Court which is yet to begin hearing the case afresh” following the Supreme Court’s verdict.
The Supreme Court had recently set aside a January 2005 Kerala High Court judgment acquitting all 35 persons except the prime accused in the Suryanelli sex scandal case.
Attack on victim’s character
Besides his remarks were an attack on the character of the victim, Mr. Rajendran said. He said the Indian Penal Code made it amply clear that sexual intercourse with persons below 16 years with or without their consent amounted to an offence of rape. Therefore, it was really case of rape, he contended. How one could say that child prostitution was valid when prostitution itself had been banned, Mr. Rajendran asked.
Kaleeswaram Raj, High Court lawyer and legal commentator said while Mr. Basant was an upright judge who had the respect of the Bar, his remarks were “extremely unfortunate and unjustifiable on several counts”. Mr. Raj added that Mr. Basant should have kept in mind that the victim was a living person, “who is fighting with a past which was cruel, and with a future that is uncertain.
She is a victim who lives a life which no one else would desire to live”. Mr. Basant’s remarks about her “are unjust and unfair”.
Mr. Raj pointed out that the High Court judgment on the Suryanelli case “reflects a medieval concept on man-woman relation and child rights. The theory of presumed consent indicated in the judgment negates several Supreme Court judgments on the point.
“After the Supreme Court setting it aside, one of the authors of the judgment, Mr. Basant should not have justified it even in a private conversation. He was talking on an issue which is no longer private. He should have fairly acknowledged the reality that with the Supreme Court judgment, his judgment does not survive any longer”, he said.
He further said the jurisprudence of human rights in the context of violence on women had undergone radical changes in recent years.
“It is unfortunate that some of our judges live in captivities, where entry of new ideas and thoughts is strictly prohibited. This is probably why Mr. Basant is still strong on his arguments,” he said.
Sivan Madathil, High Court lawyer and legal commentator, termed Mr. Basant’s remarks as “absurd”.
He pointed out that it was wrong to say the victim was used for child prostitution, when the law itself had prohibited prostitution. If the former judge had found that she had been used for child prostitution when he wrote the judgment, he should have issued a directive to strictly implement the prohibition of prostitution in the State.
The court was not worried about the plight or rights of the victim, but was concerned only about the rights of the accused. Why did Mr. Basant not probe the antecedents of the accused who had assaulted the girl, he asked.
D.B. Binu, lawyer and human rights activist, said Mr. Basant should not have made such remarks either in a private or public conservation. A judge was supposed to keep his hands off his judgment once it was delivered, he said.
Keywords: Kerala, Suryanelli rape case, Supreme Court, Justice Basant, sexual assault
In the whole process did this man made contempt to supreme court ruling?
Please do check!
His imperious comments did blemish the image of legal profession but
he being the former Judge of Kerala HC, primarily it had despoiled the very
standing of said HC on top of the image of state itself!
The people of Kerala will plausibly see R.Basant as a crooked former
Judge who had scorned the SC order that enabled the victim of the
appalling sex scandal to foresee the refurbishment of justice lost to
her. They will interpret it as an attempt to confuse the society on
the back drop of the SC order criticizing the acquittal of all accused
by the Kerala HC bench. Civil society or activists for ethics in legal
system can straight away file a case against R. Basant.
Kerala Chief Minister Oomman Chandy must have confessed that cannot
endorse the views of the former Judge. But he must prove to show an
unbiased rejoinder on behalf of his government by shrewdly initiating
for the removal of R.Basant’s name from the recommended panel of
Judges to SC.
His relaxed but belligerent dialogues were appeared as if it was stage
rehearsed ultimately to prove that the then minor victim was
cheerfully engaged in child prostitution which cannot be termed as
rape! The immaturity and rashness at which he over-reacted to the SC
verdict that invalidated the judgment of Kerala HC is unpardonable as
it may discount the esteem of our judicial doctrines and system of
legal acquiescence that is emphasizing justice at times by undoing
injustice happened at lower courts. There is reason for anyone to
suspect that the former judge is part of some conspiracy to thwart the
opening up of the case again in Kerala HC on the back drop of the U-
turn of the case from SC.Knowingly or unknowingly R.Basant’s remarks
became malicious against the SC order which will never get ignored as
a casual comment in a private talk taking into account his entity in
the society being a responsible former Judge in the Kerala HC and the
serving lawyer in SC, the Apex Court itself.
The allegation against P.J.Kurian will be just an allegation as long
as any probe is ordered entailing evidently proving his involvement
and found guilty. When the interviewer, raised on the added issue of a
widespread public opinion under the banner of Opposition parties in
the state and peoples’ movement, especially by women’s associations
demanding the resignation of P.J. Kurian, let it be a casual query,
R.Basant should have opted not to answer back. Instead he gave a
detailed reply which will naturally be seen as deliberate attempt to
offer a benefit in favour of P.J. Kurian. He towed the talk to the
extent of affirming that he will be for the same decree of 2005 if
given a chance to hear the case again! The judicial fraternity can
never approve of R Basant’s comments mocking the verdict of SC bench
by stating ‘those who have not read the judgment, will be shocked’
which went in bad taste.
For your knowledge(judge Basant) any person have sex with an under aged
girl is a crime,regardless whether she is a prostitute or not.You owe
an apology to the entire women hood.
It makes little difference whether or not Mr Basant apologises for his recent comments about Suryanelli matter nor does it make any material difference whether or not in broadcasting his comments TV channel violated "broadcasting ethics". He stated his firmly held opinions which he continues to hold; what is left is for the rest of us to realise what sort of a person he is and what sort of socially IGNORANT persons get selected as JUDGES. We then should try to do what we can to improve that selection. Here an important question arises: ALL EMPLOYEES (STATE OR PRIVATE) are normally held accountable and punished for failures in the correct discharge of their duties; WHY SHOULD JUDGES BE ANY DIFFERENT?
Wow! and this guy was actually a judge. No wonder India is in such a
mess.
Simply apologising won't do, he must be criminally prosecuted.
It is very unfortunate that Justice Krishna Iyer asked for an apology from Justice Basant for repeating on TV channel what he stated in the judgment.As Mr Iyer knows very well that one may disagree with a judge for the deciaion he arrived at but to ask for his apology is going too far.There are cases where Mr. Iyer refused to follow a binding judgment of a larger Supreme Court Bench regarding the constitutional validity of death punishment, and gave a conflicting decision. That decision of Mr Iyer was in effect overruled in Bachan Singh case.Will it be proper for somebody to ask Mr Iyer to make amends for rendering a per incuriam judgment for the sake of pursuing his personal view regarding death punishment?
Aptly said by respected Krishna Ayyer.Basanth should apologise for the blunderous remark he made.What he has to do is to admit the wrong judgement in the case and help start a fresh investigation into the case to get his lost honour back.
Please Email the Editor