The public needs both gavel and pen

"The Supreme Court's proposal to impose guidelines on how to report cases will be harmful to press freedom and democracy, the bedrock of which is an informed public."

The Hindu : Columns / Siddharth Varadarajan : The public needs both gavel and pen: The Supreme Court has seen fit to specify that accredited correspondents must possess a law degree; it has also quantified the amount of reporting experience, at different levels of the judiciary, that these correspondents must have. Having raised the bar for entry, imposing further restrictions in the form of guidelines on these correspondents — all of whom have been allowed in precisely because of their knowledge of, and sensitivity towards, the functioning of the Court — seems especially superfluous.

Journalists and editors should be honest in accepting that the reason the Supreme Court — and the government — want to step in is because the media act as if they are not accountable to anyone. Aggrieved citizens have no forum they can approach for an effective and swift remedy in the event of being injured by misreporting. Unless newspapers and television stations get serious about self-regulation, the pressure of external regulation will always remain.

Authored by Siddharth Varadarajan

A case for judicial lockjaw

"Judgments should speak for themselves; when judges justify them in public, they run the risk of sounding like politicians."

The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : A case for judicial lockjaw: Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly, a judge of the Supreme Court, who retired recently, has, since leaving office, actively engaged with the media. As well as raising questions of individual propriety, it contains possible portents of the slowly changing nature of the Indian higher judiciary. His statements, especially to the extent they clarify and defend his judgment, raise deep questions regarding the proper role of judges in post-retirement public life.

The judge, after rendering judgment, becomes 'functus officio' and the judgment speaks for itself, is a long established principle in the Indian judicial system. Any engagement with the media by a judge in a judicial capacity, whether while holding office or post-retirement, fundamentally erodes the extent of the institutional detachment, which allows judges to be immune from the passions of popular sentiment and political machinations, thereby facilitating the independence of the judiciary as an institution.

Justice Ganguly's comments, unwarranted as they may have been, perhaps provide an early sign of the subtle transformation of the Supreme Court into an overtly political institution, owning up and reacting to the immense political ramifications of its actions. Equally, they raise deep questions regarding the interaction between judges and the media, arguably two of the most powerful pillars in Indian democracy today.

Supreme Court should issue official media summaries of important decisions. Not only will this facilitate wide comprehensibility of key judgments, but it will also ensure that judicial decisions are not wantonly misinterpreted. Most importantly, it will mean that judges, whether in office or speaking in their judicial capacity immediately post-retirement, will have an additional reason to remain lockjawed, allowing their judgment together with its officially authorised summary to do the talking.

Not this kind of closure, CBI

"Asked by the courts to investigate the infamous Hari Masjid incident of the 1993 Mumbai riots, the country's premier investigation agency, CBI, has closed the case saying it can find no 'neutral' witnesses."

Upbraiding the government for its half-hearted approach and demolishing the CBI's reluctance to take up what it described as a "simple" case, the Court remarked that this was a "case that affects the very soul of India." The Hindu : Opinion / Op-Ed : Not this kind of closure, CBI

But as Mumbai's riot victims have found out, what judges say matters little to the State and to policemen. The courts haven't failed the victims, the State has!

The parties that rule Gujarat, Maharashtra and the Centre, and their police, must answer one question: how long do they expect Muslim victims, who see their community constantly accused of being terrorists, to keep fighting through courts?

Pakistan's judiciary faces criticism for ‘overreach'

"The superior judiciary's seeming convergence with the anti-government sentiments in the establishment and media has sparked unease."

Viewing the judicial activism in the context of 'jockeying for power and influence in the formative phase of democratic transition', the increased tension between the elected executive and non-elected Supreme Court could be used by the opposition to destabilise the government. Given the state of affairs in the country and maintaining that the military's capacity should not be underestimated. The Hindu : Opinion / Op-Ed : Pakistan's judiciary faces criticism for ‘overreach':

A second look at international arbitration

The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : A second look at international arbitration:

"The Supreme Court needs to adopt a ‘pro-arbitration' stance to provide fast, efficient and predictable remedies to foreign investors."

Cool it

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/letters/article2717950.ece

Supreme Court's advice to Kerala and Tamil Nadu

Laudable
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/letters/article2715231.ece