KOZHIKODE: R. Basant, Judge of Kerala High Court, has said that court verdicts cannot go by the rule that it must be accepted by the majority.
Inaugurating a debate on `"Criticism of court verdict— right or wrong?'' organised by Vigil Human Rights here on Saturday, Mr. Basant said if one were to go by that belief then the right of minorities ensured by the Constitution would be meaningless. Judgments were not to be given on the basis of prejudices of the times.
`Error probable'
Mr. Basant said any human institution could commit errors. The accountability to reason was the only restraining power of judiciary. The right to speech was also controlled by other Acts, including laws of obscenity, defamation and Official Secrets Act. Privilege of Assembly (legislature) and contempt of court were other restrictions on the freedom of speech.
A person would be happy and another unhappy after every verdict. He said that the right to dissent was not the same as the right to criticise. He said it was not right to take to streets even before exhausting all the options of law. The criticism of the court verdict was a serious affair. It was not right to take to the streets even before reading the judgment.
`Wrong trend'
P.S. Sreedharan Pillai, former BJP State president and founder coordinator, Vigil Human Rights, said that marches being taken out to the court after verdicts, which was now a growing trend, was not right. Judges cannot pronounce judgments in the midst of intimidating atmosphere. The trend of arraigning judges as accused based on a verdict was not right. The decay in moral vales affected the judiciary also. All concerned should make a soul search in this regard, he said.
T.K. Hamza, MP, said the final power rests with Parliament. Highly critical of some of the court verdicts, Mr. Hamza, however, said there was a limit in criticising the court. M.K. Muneer, former Minister, Joseph Jacob, founder president, Kerala Bar Association, Kasim Irikkoor, journalist and V.C. Geetamani, president, Calicut Bar Association, also spoke.
Inaugurating a debate on `"Criticism of court verdict— right or wrong?'' organised by Vigil Human Rights here on Saturday, Mr. Basant said if one were to go by that belief then the right of minorities ensured by the Constitution would be meaningless. Judgments were not to be given on the basis of prejudices of the times.
`Error probable'
Mr. Basant said any human institution could commit errors. The accountability to reason was the only restraining power of judiciary. The right to speech was also controlled by other Acts, including laws of obscenity, defamation and Official Secrets Act. Privilege of Assembly (legislature) and contempt of court were other restrictions on the freedom of speech.
A person would be happy and another unhappy after every verdict. He said that the right to dissent was not the same as the right to criticise. He said it was not right to take to streets even before exhausting all the options of law. The criticism of the court verdict was a serious affair. It was not right to take to the streets even before reading the judgment.
`Wrong trend'
P.S. Sreedharan Pillai, former BJP State president and founder coordinator, Vigil Human Rights, said that marches being taken out to the court after verdicts, which was now a growing trend, was not right. Judges cannot pronounce judgments in the midst of intimidating atmosphere. The trend of arraigning judges as accused based on a verdict was not right. The decay in moral vales affected the judiciary also. All concerned should make a soul search in this regard, he said.
T.K. Hamza, MP, said the final power rests with Parliament. Highly critical of some of the court verdicts, Mr. Hamza, however, said there was a limit in criticising the court. M.K. Muneer, former Minister, Joseph Jacob, founder president, Kerala Bar Association, Kasim Irikkoor, journalist and V.C. Geetamani, president, Calicut Bar Association, also spoke.
0 comments:
Post a Comment