After another hour-long debate, interjections, counter interjections and sharp, pithy, sarcastic observations from the bench, the constitutional reforms of the BCCI as mandated by the Supreme Court still seem a distant dream.
For all those who have been regular visitors to the court, trying to figure out the mood of the bench, while latching on to every word the judges utter, it has been an educative journey through a tedious route. Much as there is to admire in the garrulous verbosity that the lawyers display in trying to defend their clients, the arguments can become too long-drawn, overstretched and even meaningless, if they have been repeated over a period of time in each hearing of the court.
The sting of an argument loses bite if it plays out like a drunken man stuck at one point while trying to put forth his point of view. We all know that the judges perform an extremely important and sensitive job, and on their wisdom depends the outcome of a case. There is one more significant aspect of their job that may go unrecognised and that is the patience they display while dealing with an excited lawyer.
Since all the lawyers involved have massive reputations to defend and get fat pay cheques for putting to use their debating skills, they are keen to prolong an argument, even if it may be devoid of any meaning. Their main strength lies in realising what the judges may be thinking and accordingly tailoring their choice of words. It is a fascinating battle which, in this case, has dragged on and on and what the final shape of the reforms will be is still uncertain.
Does this mean more dilution of the Lodha recommendations could be a possibility or was it a ploy from the bench to not get involved with arguments that made no sense to them? Hopefully, we will get some clarity at the next hearing on September 18. One had not realised that even after a Supreme Court verdict has been passed, those at the receiving end could still have hope.