Is it contempt?

The editorial in People’s Democracy deals with the subject of contempt in the context of Delhi High Court holding four Mid Day journalists guilty of contempt of court. It argues that “invoking the provision of contempt of court to silence critiques of possible judicial misconduct would appear particularly indefensible... Surely, a judgement can be contested.” It also raises questions about what can be termed as contempt in the eyes of the court. For example, it says, in the past the courts have banned strikes and public protests, holding up the principle of “no work, no pay”. But recently, when doctors protested against OBC reservations, the court ordered that their salaries be paid for the striking period. It then asks, “would pointing out such glaring inconsistencies, reflecting, among others, a class bias, amount to contempt of court?”

Tricky reasoning

In the context of the Sethusamudram project, an article in People’s Democracy alleges that, “in different guises, the Hindutva brigade has attempted to mix science, history, mythology and faith, in order to hoodwink the Indian people and foist upon them their divisive and sectarian agenda. It is an extremely convenient and canny potion, and the Hindutva brigade have perfected the art of concocting it. If we dispute their own scientific arguments, then they fall back on the argument that science cannot override faith. If we question their interpretation of history, we are faced with the contention that mythology and history are inseparable, and in cases of dispute the former will always prevail.”

... contd.