This situation caused by a campaign of calumny against a former chief justice did call for some solution. None of this makes resort to the power of contempt a wise choice.

There are two major reasons why India continues to be a vibrant democracy — if one is a robust judiciary, the second is a fearless press. Both these institutions in India have had to adopt unorthodox methods to preserve the rule of law and bring about some degree of transparency, or at least translucency, in a rather opaque state of governance. The courts, of late, are also seeking to enforce accountability by treating it as a facet of rule of law, while the media achieves (or strives to) the same object by mobilising public opinion.

The source of power of both these institutions is the same — public opinion and public confidence. Eroding public faith and confidence in either of these would imperil democracy.

The courts (specially the high court) have also on occasion erred — and erred seriously — in exercising their jurisdiction in PILs. The media has had its own share of blunders. Neither of these should set one institution against the other.

Every judge has his “foot print”. Justice Sabharwal’s footprint is that of a judge who took on controversial cases and dealt with them squarely. This is reflected in his judgments in the case relating to the expulsion of members of Parliament, the office of profit controversy, Bihar Assembly dismissal, the forest matter, and the Ninth Schedule matter.

... contd.