Judge on the mat

Hell may have no fury like a woman scorned, but a top court judge insulted can be far more furious. This was reflected in the unprecedented action taken against the retired Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju who was served notice of contempt for criticising the judges and not the judgment in the Soumya murder case. While judges may be expected not to be too intolerant of criticism, it was the crass behaviour of the former judge after being invited to the court to assist the bench which invited such stern action. To be escorted out of the top court by security was Mr Katju’s unseemly fate, but he had contributed handsomely to this by his defiant attitude, treated with proportionate contumely by the court.

Acerbic a critic may be, but an antagonistic attitude in open court with which he insulted his former colleagues was certainly unbecoming of a judge who should have known better. The drama hasn’t ended and it is hoped Mr Katju is ticked off in an admonishment rather than anything more drastic. Legal opinions vary about whether any contempt was involved in the intemperate comments of Mr Katju with the attorney general changing his view from “scandalous” to “intemperate not inviting contempt”, but the judges saw red, maybe due to Mr Katju’s behaviour in the court.

The larger argument of this being a free country in which freedom of expression should be guaranteed becomes awkward in this case as the top court is being repeatedly questioned by a person who also seems to have an opinion on every subject under the sun. While such a predilection may be seen as a distinguishing trait in career politicians and, perhaps, in journalists, the fact remains that there is a civilised way to behave, which is particularly expected of people who have held high office. However erudite a person may be, dignity alone can enhance a man’s standing. That is a lesson Mr Katju doesn’t seem to have learnt.