Sri Lankan politics
The consolidation of power by the Rajapaksa clan (‘Profiles’ page, July 11) is cause for concern as far as India is concerned. Mahinda Rajapaksa paid no heed to India’s entreaties after the civil war ended, to devolve more powers to the Tamil areas. The brothers are even less likely to pay attention now. Beijing’s vice-like grip on Sri Lankan politics will only get stronger now. The brothers are sharply aware of India’s own majoritarian turn as well as its troubles with China at the border and in the region. That the Rajapaksas will continue using Beijing as a counter-weight to Delhi is a reality.
S.S. Paul,
Chakdaha, Nadia, West Bengal
Exit from Kerala
It is true that many industrialists, real estate companies and corporate sectors face harassment from politicians and government agencies for various reasons. As the Kitex group has also entered the political arena in Kerala (‘Profiles’ page, ‘Kitex Group – Business and politics’, July 11), and with quite a few successes, established political heavyweights must have sensed a threat. It is indeed unfortunate that politics could have resulted in Kerala losing a huge investment opportunity. There is no harm in corporate entities getting into politics. We have some examples in Parliament.
J.P. Reddy,
Nalgonda, Telangana
Professional conduct
As a commoner, with no formal education or sufficient knowledge of our Constitution, acts, laws and rules, I feel prompted to raise some innocent questions in connection with the article, “The bar on criticism that muzzles the advocate” (Editorial page, July 10). Is it advisable to leave unnoticed ‘disparaging statements’ by any advocate about courts, judges, Bar Councils and members of Bar Councils, or, for that matter, by any citizen about any other citizen? Are not disciplinary proceedings a form of remedy to the situation? Does not the subject come under professional conduct and etiquette? Is not the Bar Council of India the proper agency to issue amendments to rules in respect of advocates? If the mandatory approval of the Chief Justice of India for such amendments is not obtained, the Council looks to be at fault, which surely needs rectification. The now-in-abeyance rules have already exempted ‘healthy and bona fide’ criticism, made in ‘good faith’ from the purview of the new rules. The writer of the article should be confident that the report of the Review Committee, and its scrutiny by the CJI, should solve the issue amicably.
P.R.V. Raja.
Pandalam, Kerala
On recusal
For the past couple of years, we have been seeing brazen attempts by vested interests to cast aspersions on judges in an attempt to influence verdicts in high profile cases (Inside pages, “Judge recuses from Mamata’s election case”, July 8). The Supreme Court should adopt a policy of zero tolerance towards covert attempts to intimidate judges into withdrawing from cases assigned to them. Supreme Court judge Kaushik Chanda did not score any moral victory by recusing himself from the Mamata Banerjee election case, notwithstanding his indignant assertions about his professional integrity. It is a victory for his maligners because he has unwittingly created a moral hazard of emboldening powerful interests to interfere in the administration of justice. The fine of ₹5 lakh imposed on Ms Banerjee is a pyrrhic victory for judicial independence.
V.N. Mukundarajan,
Thiruvananthapuram
At Wimbledon
The Wimbledon women’s final (‘Sport’ page, July 11) stood embellished by Karolina Pliskova. While Ashleigh Barty came through as an archetypical serve and volley tennis mannequin, Pliskova was the confident, pesky nymph of the court. Barty laboured over her game with resolve while Pliskova enjoyed hers. If one played more for the cup ,the other strove to thrill the viewer.
R. Narayanan,
Navi Mumbai
