Unnecessary legal storm in Tamil Nadu
In the week before NEET was conducted, four youngsters in Tamil Nadu died by suicide, allegedly due to fear of how they would perform in the test. The exam has become an emotive issue related to social justice in the state from the very beginning. A statement issued by an actor in this context, however, set off an unexpected—and unnecessary—legal storm that concluded on Friday in a 29-page order written by the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.
“The court which, fearing for its life due to the Covid-19 pandemic, is hearing cases via video conferencing, orders students to fearlessly face the exams,” the actor wrote. This is a reference to the Supreme Court dismissing pleas to defer the exams and then dismissing a review petition on the same issue. Aggrieved, a Madras HC judge urged the Chief Justice to initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against the actor.
A section of advocates too backed the call for contempt proceedings while several others—and six former HC judges—argued that the matter should be dropped. In the wake of the Prashant Bhushan case, the court’s decision on the matter was closely watched. “...it is not the job of a constitutional Court to use a sledgehammer for avoidance of something which can be perceived to be not capable of even being propped up as a contempt, much less debated to the level of a criminal contempt,” the court finally acknowledged in its order.
Yet, despite the actor’s comment being a factual reference to the Supreme Court, the HC in its mediation on free speech, criticism and justice, still declared it as “absolutely unnecessary or even unwarranted, for being ignorant of the manner in which the entire judiciary of this state has served the interest of its citizens during this pandemic…” That the court decided against initiating contempt proceedings is a relief to those who cherish free speech and democratic values.
However, the entire affair has also created unease given how so often the process can itself become a punishment. Rather than displaying such sensitivity to stray comments, it is imperative that the higher judiciary be more sensitive to the great power it represents and wields.