What are the judges are afraid of ?

Recently, the SC pronounced a verdict in the SAHARA case against SEBI and about how the media with certain documents that were leaked did a story. The basis of the case is that somehow the media discussion about the case and public opinion is prejudicial to the SAHARA group.

 

In the olden days in some states we had a jury system where in Jurors will hear arguments and decide on the guilt or innocence of an individual. Even in that the presiding judge has the power to overrule the jury and pronounce a verdict on his own to prevent mis-carriage of justice.

Now, jury system has been abolished only judges deliver verdicts. Yet, the SC wants restrictions on discussion on cases in courts as it will be prejudicial hence subject to reasonable restrictions. Unless the media says the judge who is hearing the case has some reason not to be on the bench etc. I find it hard to understand how would it be prejudicial. We already have contempt of court as a means to deal with this…

 

Prejudice can occur only in the case of a bad judge, let us be clear about it. If the SC truly feels that it is a significant problem, then they probably should start cleaning up their own stables, instead of enforcing a tradition of sub-judice. Even sub-judice is not a law but a tradition, which is used by the corrupt to file a bogus case and them pre-empt all responses, by saying “the matter is sub-judice”.

 

I would have been happier, if instead of restricting free debate the SC had 1. Dispensed away with sub-judice as a notion/tradition completely and 2. Started cleaning up the fallible amongst its bretheren.

 

This judgment will do more harm than good as it provides (however unintentional) an avenue for the criminals to hide behind the sub-judice curtain. I sincerely hope that a constitutional bench sees the dangers and reverses this decision.