It is indeed seldom that a judge of a Sessions Court attracts media attention for factors not directly attributable to the importance or sensationalism of the case which he is trying: the kudos generally are reserved for their Lordships in the High Courts and Supreme Court.

That is all the more reason to appreciate Sidharth Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, for coming down heavily on counsel for the Enforcement Directorate attempting to inject “patriotism” into a case he was prosecuting.

It was a courtroom “not a TV studio”, the judge admonished lawyer Rajeev Awasthi. Without commenting on the merits of the case being processed by the ED against Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Shah, the court was clearly irked by counsel asking the accused to prove his loyalty to the nation by chanting Bharat Mata ki jai.

Since the ED comes under the supervision of eminent jurist and finance minister Arun Jaitley, the legal profession would be keen to see how the minister views the matter and whether the services of Awasthi will be retained by the financial watchdog. The Additional Sessions Judge was obviously not impressed.

Lawyers, admittedly, do not live or function in isolation, yet it has to be asked if it is necessary for them to play to the gallery, exploit political sentiments, or swing with the public mood to press their case ~ admittedly the politicians among the legal fraternity have made a fine art of that. However, when a case is at the trial stage the focus should be on facts, not fanciful interpretation of them.

The action taken by the National Investigation Agency, Enforcement Directorate etc to thwart the funding of violence and separatist activity in the Kashmir Valley has been widely recognised, what additional purpose would be served by seeking that a person accused in any of the cases prove his patriotism by articulating sentiments to which he obviously does not subscribe?

Maybe the lawyer felt he was reaffirming his own loyalty by “exposing” the accused. The short point, however, is whether a successful prosecution is critically dependent on such an exposure?

The “embroidery” could be seen not just as unprofessional but signs of a weak case requiring much “dressing up”: agencies like the ED must be careful that their counsel do not fritter away the fruits of their probes by immature publicity stunts.

Even if the call to chant Bharat Mata ki jai is in consonance with other controversial moves,~ a courtroom is hardly the place in which patriotism is to be proven in response to a counsel’ bullying tactics. Additional Sessions Judge Sharma has displayed the moral courage to keep proceedings in his court on the “straight and narrow” ~ not easy in the prevailing ambience.