KOTTAYAM, July 2, 2010

UNFAIR CRITICISM’ OF JUDICIARY DECRIED

Justice Cyriac Joseph delivering the first 'Justice K K Masthew Law Lecture Series' at
Kottayam Bar Association Hall on Friday.

Cyriac Joseph, judge of the Supreme Court of India, on Friday came down heavily on the
“unfair criticism” levelled against the judiciary and wondered why cultural leaders and
institutions such as the Bar Association were silent on the issue.

Delivering the first K.K. Mathew Memorial Law Lecture series on the ‘Role of Judiciary in
Democratic India,' organised as part of the centenary celebrations of the Kottayam Bar
Association here, Mr. Joseph said the “abuse and intemperate outbursts” from any quarters
were only a display of “ignorance of the constitutional provisions” as also a mark of “lack of
culture.”

The people of India as represented by the Constituent Assembly had given shape to the
Constitution and had “entrusted the judiciary with the responsibility of upholding the
Constitution, constitutional values and constitutional institutions. Thus the people of India,
through the Constituent Assembly, had assigned the role of a watchdog and corrective force
for the judiciary in its functioning so that parliamentary democracy could flourish,” he said.

“Judges think, speak and act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and
cannot act like bull in a china shop,” Mr. Joseph said and added that whatever powers the
judges have are derived from the Constitution. “They are not an unwanted, unauthorised
group of people who wield self-acquired powers unaccounted for,” he said

Stating that unfair criticism of the judiciary would undermine democracy and the rule of
law in the country, Mr. Joseph said India was ranked high internationally on account of its
vibrant democracy which ensured elections every five years and the presence of an
independent judiciary. “Independent judiciary is the hallmark of Indian democracy,” he
said and added that the decision not to have an elected judiciary was a principled decision
of the Constituent Assembly. “This does not make them less authentic,” he said and added
that they are appointed on the basis of well laid out rules and guidelines.

“Judgments were not above criticism and any judgment could be subject to constructive
criticism at an academic and intellectual level,” he said and stressed that judges who passed
judgments that one does not agree with cannot be subjected to unfair criticism, abuse and
ridicule. The Constitution provides for revision of judgments and the aggrieved parties
should take recourse to such avenues, he said.

“Unlike in a game of football, there is no provision to show the Red Card, though some
believe that the provision for Contempt of Court was one such stipulation. “But, I fear even
this would become ineffective if people are ready to go to jails,” he quipped.

Describing the late Justice K K Mathew, former judge of the Supreme Court of India, as a
“saint among judges,” Mr. Joseph said he considered K.K. Mathew as the greatest jurist
produced by Kerala.

K P Presanna Kumar, District and Sessions judge, presided. Senior lawyer and former
Minister M P Govindan Nair; senior lawyer V.K. Satyavan Nair; George Boban, president of
Kottayam Bar Association; and others spoke.

SRIDHARA BABU.N REACTIONS:- Yes My lord Justice Cyriac

Joseph your words “But, I fear even this would become ineffective if
people are ready to go to jails,” is right.

Even if Highest courts uses contempt proceedings people are asking

us with simple words “ how many days we have to go in”, “just a
matter of months”, “no worry because from decades we are openly
facing intellectual criminals from outside and for facing illiterate
criminals within is the change we get that’s not problem”!

Now a days we advocates are not having much respect in our

profession from our clients. Even though we show great honest
approach to our client’s case. People suspect us, every one know
why such situation is rampant in our society, no one dare to speak.
Every one busy in picking bucket for someone. No one want change.
Every one want adjustment. Who created it? Whether is its sudden
creation? Whether our seniors who have gone to bench (the present
Bench is yesterday’s Bar) have no part and contribution for such
scenario? How these things be rectified? Is it not the duty of Bench
to bring respect and sanctity towards it through its own code? In
rural areas people won’t give bride to a lawyer! In rural household a
lawyer is suspected as trouble shooter! A noble profession has gone
to ditch in rural areas! Who is responsible in reality?

You have fear by sitting in Air conditioned chamber and with

security, here we fear any type of repercussions from clients who
have lost hope in present day Judicial Ugly Developments. One is
protected from political clout and another is staunch listener to a
person who destroyed secular democratic fabric of our country.
Wah what an India Sabji!