Those who proudly flaunt India’s vibrant democracy were ashamed by the unruly scenes witnessed in the J&K Assembly. Displeasure with the Speaker’s ruling at times is manifested by loud protests followed by a walkout. However, it is unprecedented to charge at the Speaker and to wreck the microphone in front of his desk resulting in complete pandemonium. It is distressing that the leader of the People’s Democratic Party, Mehbooba Mufti, should have indulged in such disgusting behaviour, which is nothing short of contempt of the House and deserves exemplary punishment by the Speaker. Punishment by the Speaker is not to satisfy his pique but in order to maintain the dignity of the House, which is essential for the functioning of democracy. Leniency in such cases would be totally misplaced.

The Lok Sabha was adjourned again by the cacophony caused by reference to the disputes between two industrial tycoons, Mukesh and Anil Ambani. Surely the floor of the House cannot be used to project the version of one of the brothers. The Parliament has more important matters to discuss than the merits of these fraternal disputes which can be debated on television channels by the concerned parties or their spokespersons.

However, it is utterly unprofessional for lawyers appearing for Mukesh and Anil to canvas their clients’ point of view and trade charges when the case is pending before the Supreme Court. In this context, the anguished observations of Justice Aftab Alam expressed in felicitous language in the recent landmark judgment of Supreme Court holding R.K. Anand guilty of contempt, compels attention. Justice Alam bemoans “the general erosion of the professional values among lawyers at all levels... we find that even some highly successful lawyers seem to live by their own rules of conduct. We have viewed with disbelief senior advocates freely taking part in TV debates or giving interviews to a TV reporter/anchor of the show on issues that are directly the subject matter of cases pending before the court and in which they are appearing for one of the sides or taking up the brief of one of the sides soon after the TV show”. Justice Alam also expressed the concern of the Bench (Justices BN Agrawal and G.S. Singhvi) that “no judicial system in a democratic society can work satisfactorily unless it is supported by a bar... whose members are monetarily accessible and affordable to the people”. If past experience is any guide, it would be too much to expect Bar Councils to take appropriate measures in this behalf. Successful senior lawyers must introspect and heed the wise words of the Supreme Court. The Court is not providing a reformist agenda but has rightly emphasised that the solution must come from the lawyers themselves. Is that a fond hope? I hope not.

... contd.