Judges & Judgments

The then Chief Justice of India SA Bobde had recommended the transfer of Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court, J K Maheshwari, to Sikkim High Court, months after he (Justice Maheswari) stayed a probe into certain land dealings in Amaravati and gagged the media from reporting on it, causing an unprecedented standoff between the judiciary and the office of Chief Minister YS Jaganmohan Reddy.
AP High Court has a sanctioned strength of 37 judges, while Sikkim HC has a sanctioned strength of three judges. Sikkim HC CJ a K Goswami has been recommended to become the CJ of AP HC.
From a court of 37 judges to one of just three is certainly a demotion even disregarded the size of the two States. So it is not true that judges can give any judgementd they please and go scot-free Some decades ago the CJ of the Undecided P HC had to face litigation challenging his decision to go, at State expense, to a place in the USA where his son happened to be studying – an obscure place not particularly famous for treatment of his ailment. The case, filed by a lawyer shows that there are many waiting to file public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases even of the CJI does not take note of faulty judgements.To call a judgment faulty may not by itself. attract a contempt of court case unless some motive is attributed to the judge. Judgements usually have a lot of legal hairsplitting that only lawyers can understand and then an ‘ operative’ part that is intelligible to human beings. This usually starts with “in so far as….”If a judgement says “In so far as __brutally murdered the victim and cut her to 35 pieces, he is honorably acquitted,” you are free to call it faulty but you are supposed to be contemptuous of the judiciary ONLY if you say/write that the 35 pieces judge took a bribe or belonged to the faith of the accused.
The inoperative part of the judgement usually gives a lengthy reason – which is normally not understood by lay people – why the honorable acquittal was ordered. It may list the extenuating circumstances under which the ‘crime’ was committed or the faulty investigation due to which it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That you feel cutting a murder victim’s body into is not justified under any circumstances or it matters little that it was only 34 pieces and NOT 35 as mentioned in the charge-sheet, is immaterial. The honorable judges go by law, not feeling!