Justifying Justice Narasimha Reddy

Both in the context of the Telangana movement and “information age” we live in I see Justice L. Narsimha Reddy’s verdict as profound and critical.

The judgement has received both bouquets and brickbats and not surprisingly those who support the order are votaries of Telangana and those who believe the judge jumped the gun are “integrationists”.  This reiterates the belief that ‘correct’ is not an absolute and is a perception based on the angularity of vision.

It is never easy to judge in a time when tempers run high or when issues have a strong emotional under current. Unlike in the West we do not classify judges in India and we do not talk about their political inclinations and beliefs.  We do not even go on record to dub them as “pro landlord or pro tenant”; “capitalist or socialist”; “development or environmentalist” judges. Many fear the contempt laws of the land or even the system where they fear that they may invite the wrath of the classified judge. The task of thus of commenting on the work of a judge and that too immediately after the pronouncement is a task bathed in danger and could well lead to controversy. Fortunately, I do not see too many votaries on either side of the fence reach out to net opinion.

There are many who believe that the judge was making a political statement in his criticism about the SKC report .  They see a political statement screaming through the verdict.  Trust lawyers with the skill to see a controversy in any issue!! They also seem to suggest that the judge was being clever in quoting form the report and thereby foreclosing   the chance of a review by the state. They seem to suggest that he belongs to a region and somewhere he failed to distance himself to the required degree.

I DO NOT THINK SO. True even as I support the judgement I know I can be dubbed as one being in support of the cause rather than the “integrationist” .  I see Justice Narasimha Reddy’s exercise as a commitment to the philosophy of the constitution.  Sometimes one is called upon to err with grammar to ensure the rhetoric is well engineered. This is what LNRJ did.  Logomachies not withstanding if we are willing to delve into the spirit that drives the thought, then make no mistake this time he may have tread where others hesitate, but that’s the man: full of spirit and full of a commitment against injustice.  Sit in the man’s court and you see at all times a native sense of humour, tremendous common sense and of course untiring rightful indignation.  To some judges the constitution is the Rule Book. To others it is the paramount parchment.  Some see the court as an administrative mechanism, to others it is a peoples last stop of hope.  To some justice is a formula, to others it is a tool.  Justice LNR was known for his pro active stance.  He was willing to take a stance unmindful of criticism from a system largely governed by status -quoists. Not for him the inhibitions of public opinion.  What ever may have crossed his mind on all the nights he slept over the pronouncement ,praise or criticism were not the factors.  Some judges are sensitive to how the verdict will be received. He is not.

All this notwithstanding, from the judicial perceptive did he needlessly enter the area of controversy and comment on the credibility of the SKC report when it was not under question? My response: an emphatic NO. A judgement is the product of a judge’s perception of the fact and his understanding of the truth. It is, whether we like it or not, a work reflecting his philosophy.   Multiple zones of the analysis begged the man to be more critical of an end product whose credibility is seriously suspect.  As a constitutional watch dog, he was required to bark or bite and that certainly he did.  The excursion into the past , the reference to various Commissions, the subtle pointer to how commissions are still taken seriously, the logic of debate as an iota of democracy, were all not only necessary but finely placed.  It was a tight rope walk and to me it was the finesse of a trapeze artist. He could be misquoted and many have rushed to be critical without even reading the verdict. Nothing surprising.  His quoting profusely Justice Mathew garners support to the cause he states.

Such verdicts are bound to invite criticism.  They are also bound to raise hope. Hope that men with their heart in the right place are not lost to the leather bound knowledge and that tears not pages tell the jurisprudential credibility. Even if wrong, such judgements are welcome. They respell the dynamics of democracy.

L.Ravichander