Apparently there are more sophisticated ways of avoiding a bench. An eminent senior lawyer addresses a letter to the bench before whom his client’s case in normal course would be taken up for hearing and expresses his “embarrassment” to appear before the particular bench. If the lawyer felt embarrassed for some reason the proper course was to recuse himself rather than in effect ask the bench to recuse itself. The sad part is that the move succeeded. Justice B.N. Agrawal, the presiding judge, refused to hear the criminal appeal of the Ansals.

This expedient was recently repeated. A senior advocate, who was a former law minister, in his written application sought recusal of Justice Pasayat from hearing the case fixed before him inter alia on the ground that Justice Pasayat “may have subconscious influence of feelings” to feel aggrieved with relation to some passages in a certain book resulting in likelihood of bias. It is surprising that on mere oral submission of the alleged apprehension of bias and without dealing with the recusal application, Justice Pasayat, a no-nonsense judge of impeccable integrity, acceded to the request. Possibly it was because of the anguish he understandably felt by the allegation of bias. However the litigant’s aim of avoiding the bench was achieved. One wonders about the bench’s reaction if a junior counsel had written a similar letter or made allegations of bias. Regrettably a wrong message is sent that if a litigant cannot fix the Registry then resourceful senior counsel can help him out in forum shopping. This disturbing trend must be sternly discouraged by judges who are men of fortitude and surely have broad shoulders to deal with recusal applications.

Pub bharo campaign

The underlying issue in the attack on the pub Amnesia in Mangalore is that one’s views cannot be imposed by denial of freedom of choice to other persons and by recourse to violence. Unfortunately this crucial issue gets side-tracked by the pub bharo campaign. Our insistence should be on the immediate arrest of the hooligans indulging in such acts, making such offences non-bailable and meting out stringent punishment to them after a swift trial. Moreover it is necessary to eradicate the bigotry impelling such acts. That can be best done by dialogue rather than by presenting Pramod Muthalik with chaddis, which gives him undue publicity that can be used to his advantage.

Hazards of kissing

Goodness gracious, I did not know kissing was dangerous in India and that too between married couples. Surely it is a normal expression of affection. But the Delhi Police thought differently and arrested a young married couple kissing under a Delhi Metro pillar and prosecuted them for obscenity. No wonder Justice Muralidhar of Delhi High Court, who rightly quashed the prosecution, was troubled that “an act of warmth between the couple would be interpreted as obscene, thus triggering the coercive process of law”.