The Supreme Court held that attributing “political colours” to judgments amounts to sheer contempt of court.
In a 78-page judgment, a Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran lashed out that the act of attributing political insinuations on judges in cases of political importance is “nothing, but an act of denigrating the judiciary itself and destroys the faith of the common man which he reposes in the judicial system”.
The court compared its power of contempt to a “Bhramastra”, to be used sparingly.
“The court has the power of contempt and that lethal power too accompanies with greater responsibility. Contempt is a weapon like ‘Brahmastra’ to be used sparingly to remain effective. At the same time, a judge has to guard the dignity of the court and take action in contempt and in case of necessity to impose appropriate exemplary punishment too,” the Bench said.
The court also criticised lawyers attacking judges in the media.
“It has become very common to the members of the Bar to go to the press/media to criticise the judges in person and to commit sheer contempt by attributing political colours to the judgments. It is nothing less than an act of contempt of gravest form,” the judgment said.
The Bench made these comments in its verdict on January 28 which struck down certain amendments in the Madras High Court Rules.
The apex court said that cases cannot be decided by “media trial”.
The Bar and the Bench have an in-built machinery to deal with grievances. Outside interference cannot be allowed.
While making it clear that judicial corruption is intolerable, the Bench said lawyers cannot go to streets or go on strike except when democracy itself is in danger and the entire judicial system is at stake.
“The judgment rendered by a judge is based upon the dint of hard work and quality of the arguments that are advanced before him by the lawyers. There is no room for arrogance either for a lawyer or for a judge,” it said.
It said that for the protection of democratic values and to ensure that rule of law prevails in the country, no one can be permitted to destroy the independence of judicial system from within or from outside.
In a word of advice for lawyers, the Supreme Court said lawyers should neither be sycophants of the judiciary nor “money guzzlers or ambulance chasers”. They should neither expect favours from the judiciary nor try to influence judges.
“The role of the Bar is significant. The Bar is supposed to be the spokesperson for the judiciary as judges do not speak... it is the duty of the Bar to protect honest judges and not to ruin their reputation and at the same time to ensure that corrupt judges are not spared,” the court observed.
