It ought to cause considerable discomfort in the entire legal community that a Bench of the Supreme Court of India found it necessary to aver that a matter before it would be dealt with “dispassionately” and “objectively”. To the layman an unbiased view on any case under process was a “given”, and reassuring though it might have been the observation in court only highlighted the extent to which the contaminating tentacles of party politics have encroached upon judicial space.

True that lawyers have long been part of the Indian political scenario, and played no insignificant role in the struggle for freedom, but legal practitioners of yesteryear had the principled grace to maintain a healthy distinction between personal political preferences and the cases they presented in court.

Today that dividing line has not only been erased but lawyers who also happen to be legislators often deliberately opt for an overlapping of their presentations in both forums. The injection of politics into the courtroom is intended to either pressure the court, or to buttress the “case” in the court of public opinion. One celebrated veteran had made a fine art of coming up with a special political-legal cocktail. Where all this will lead to is difficult to determine ~ it is unlikely to be a positive destination.

The issue before the Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India ~ seeking an independent probe into the sudden death of Special CBI Judge BH Loya was “politically loaded” from the very outset. Yet did that warrant Senior Counsel trading charges like politicians on a political platform? That the court had to strive hard to ensure restraint was obvious, that it was not “spared” and accused of trying to gag the media was provocative enough for one noted lawyer being directed to tender an apology. Also, for a warning to be issued against slamming a person because he happened to be a prominent political figure.

A few publicity-conscious counsel have been using every opportunity to attack the court, perhaps not realising the implications of denigrating the institution. Thus far the Bar Associations have failed to foster disciplined, restrained conduct ~ will it be left to the court to crack the whip? Still, there can be no writing down the criticality of the specific CBI Special Judge matter. Either the air needs to be cleared of suspicion, or the “powerful” need to be brought to book. Only the apex court can provide some closure.

One reason for the Supreme Court being dragged into murky waters is that successive governments have ducked taking hard decisions. Though the previous government was accused of “policy paralysis” the present one has not been much better on some matters. Many recent decisions impacting public life have followed judicial directives ~ junking triple talaq, withdrawing Haj subsidies, upholding the authority of the CBFC…..