The intent behind sharp court whiplash
Sharp court language does make for colourful copy, but at times it is intended to sensitise litigants on the gravity of the situation and not to be taken at face value.
One such instance was the headline-grabbing statement the other day by the Delhi High Court, which sought from the Delhi government an instance of any Central, state or local administration official obstructing the pick up of medical oxygen, adding: "We will hang them, we won’t spare anyone!"
Yet, when in the subsequent hearing a specific instance of four Delhi-bound cryogenic tankers being stopped by Rajasthan was flagged, the Bench, instead of requisitioning the hangman, asked the Centre to ease the bottleneck. Rajasthan though is yet to yield, as the state has a different perspective.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented Rajasthan in the SC last Friday, said the tankers were not blocked but requisitioned to cater to remote destinations within the state. He appeared rather reluctant to go to the Delhi HC Bench to set the record straight and get the order revised despite the SC’s prodding.
Shocked by the recent deaths tied to oxygen scarcity in Delhi, the flustered HC has now ordered the Centre to honour its commitment of delivering 490 MT of oxygen each day with immediate effect. That figure is about 100 MT more than the current supply.
"Much water has gone above the head. Now we mean business. Enough is enough," the Bench observed, warning failure to provide full quota could attract contempt of court proceedings. How soon the Centre will be able to augment supply without choking other states remains to be seen.
The SC had last week advised High Courts to refrain from making unnecessary and sharp off-the-cuff remarks during hearings as they might have serious ramifications. On balance, it added, "We must not be so fragile as to get offended by them."
Yet, the Election Commission of India approached the SC to clear its name following the Madras HC holding it singularly responsible for the Covid spread and saying its officials could be hauled up for murder. But the SC fobbed off the poll panel, saying oral observations are as important as written orders.