One should not ignore Justice Agrawal’s words “if what you say is true ...” that came in response to the AIADMK counsel’s allegations.
Sambi Reddy Endreddy,Guntur
No doubt, Justice Agrawal’s observation was unwarranted and should have been avoided. But it is also not known why the DMK called for a bandh and its leaders undertook a fast when the Sethusamudram issue is in the Supreme Court and the parties that want the project to be implemented are part of the ruling combine.
It is relevant to note that the judge qualified his observation with the conditional clause “if what you say is true.” It is only natural for any sensitive judge to react emotionally to a report of non-compliance with the court’s orders. That should not cast doubts on his or her capacity to assess the evidence objectively and arrive at the right decision in formal court proceedings.
The editorial has rightly stated that oral observations of judges may colour the public mind and have an impact in the political sphere. As such, they should be cautious while making comments. In the same vein, Ministers too, while making comments with regard to the judiciary or judges, should exercise caution and restraint.
Justice Agrawal’s observations, since they do not form part of the judgment, cannot be deemed to offend the Constitution. Judges making humorous and angry remarks during the course of a hearing is common. They should be seen only as a reaction to a situation. Justice Agrawal’s remarks should not be blown out of proportion.