New Delhi: Criticising judges in the media by lawyers has become very common and attributing “political colours” to judgments amounted to “sheer contempt”, the Supreme Court has said. It said however that power of contempt with the court is a weapon like “Bhramastra”, to be used sparingly, reports PTI. The apex court also said that cases cannot be decided by “media trial” and the bar and bench have their own in-built machinery to deal with grievance and no outside interference can be allowed. Judges who are attacked are not supposed to go to the press or the media to ventilate their point of view, it added. It said lawyers are not supposed to be “money guzzlers” and should not involve in influencing fair decision making process. While referring to various attacks made on the judicial system from time to time, the court said a lot of sacrifices are made to serve the judiciary which is not less than call of military service. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran said that whenever any political matter is decided by the court either way, “political insinuations” are attributed by “unscrupulous persons/advocates”.
The bench made these comments in its 78-page judgement dated January 28, while striking down certain amended Rules of the Madras High Court including the one to debar a lawyer from practising. “It has become very common to the members of the Bar to go to the press/media to criticize 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 bench said.
Dealing with the power of contempt, the bench said, “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.” It said that act of attributing political insinuations on judges in cases of political importance “are nothing, but an act of denigrating the judiciary itself and destroys the faith of the common man which he reposes in the judicial system”.
