This write up examines the locus standi of transnational bodies to comment on the legal system and verdicts delivered by Courts of another country. There is rather a well-recognised right of a country and its citizens to comment on unfair economic sanctions, human right violations and aggressive foreign policy of another country. However commenting on foreign legal system and judgments of foreign courts, is a clear transgression of sovereignty.
Recently, Unites States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo condemned China’s plan to impose a new security law in Hong Kong, calling it a “death knell” for the city’s freedoms. Of course, there was a backlash from Beijing.
The verdict of the Hong Kong court convicting seven local policemen and a former chief executive for their beating of activist Ken triggered controversy in the region. However, when several foreign personalities started hailing the verdict, China had to react sharply.
Mr. Donald Trump tweeted in 2015 that “Mexico’s court system corrupt. I want nothing to do with Mexico other than to build an impenetrable wall and stop them from tipping off U.S.”
Recently, Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC) of United Kingdom and (read their names carefully) Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC), Hindus for Human Rights (HFHR), Global Indian Progressive Alliance (GIPA), Students Against Hindutva Ideology (SAHI), Young India, Inc and Voices against Fascism in India all situated in United States of Amercia have taken up the job of “correcting” Indian judicial system especially the Supreme Court of India.
These transnational bodies have issued statement expressing their “concern” over the Indian Supreme Court’s recent judgment convicting Mr. Prashant Bhushan of contempt of Court for two of his tweets. Though the statement and resolutions are worded ingeniously, the attempt is to make a collateral attack on the Indian Judicial system for the reasons which are not very difficult to understand.
These organisations are created for a specific purpose as can be seen from their very names. I fail to understand which Hindutva or Fascism or even anti-Muslim ideology flow from the Judgement of the Supreme Court in Mr. Prashant Bhushan case. Be that as it may, there is a clear indication that these bodies with their foreign existence, foreign funding, foreign affiliation, foreign loyalty have taken up an agenda which is extremely alarming and dangerous. This is because, after attacking Indian Governance, Indian policy towards Kashmir, India’s relations with Pakistan and China, they have turned the guns on Indian Judiciary.
Indian advocates, lawyers’ bodies, legal luminaries and like minded personalities have been commenting on the judgment and they may claim freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Fair enough. However, these foreign elements have no such fundamental right or locus standi to comment and interfere with the smooth functioning of Indian legal system and Indian Judiciary.
Indian lawyers, NGOs, political outfits, intellectuals and retired judges have been critically analysing the judgement leaving no room for the foreign bodies to add anything more. Our nation is full of intellectuals fully capable of bringing judicial discipline whenever it is found lacking.
Ground reality. Let’s admit. Today the entire populace of India is divided vertically into two segments. (1) Those who are extremely happy with last six years governance and are gloating with patriotism or extreme nationalism as one may call. (2) Those who are terribly upset, frustrated and disappointed with last six years governance and feel side-lined, cheated, and most importantly, kept out of grazing grounds. The lawyers community, intellectuals, scholars, political outfits, NGOs have chosen their respective segments. Unfortunately, Judgments of the Indian judiciary especially the Supreme Court are also classified as falling in category 1 or 2.
But that’s the fundamental right the citizens of this country enjoy. That’s the freedom of expression they are guaranteed, of course, all within reasonable restrictions.
Mr. B.V.Acharya, Senior Advocate and former Advocate General for Karnataka says “It is shocking to find that the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales has thought it fit to plead for contemnor and has demanded repeal of the statutory provision regarding criminal contempt. This is a clear case of interference in the internal affairs of the country and in particular the sovereign power of the Indian Parliament which is competent enough to take decisions without any external influence.”
Mr. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate, Bangalore feels the comments of the aforesaid bodies on the Indian legal system as unwarranted and disturbing.
Comity of Nations requires mutual recognition by nations of the laws and customs of others. The principle is not confined to sovereign bodies but extends to its citizens as well. The legal system in US dilutes contempt of court laws by adopting “Clear and Present Danger” test. The test allows almost unlimited freedom of speech to individuals. It looks like the aforesaid transnational bodies are influenced by this legal system prevalent in US.
Some of President Donald Trump tweets are outrageous, yet fall under permissible category. Just to give one example, he tweets “Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot. Resign!”. Such tweets are in abundance.
However, the situation in India is different. Calling judges idiots (fools) is held to be contemptuous (M.V.Jayarajan vs High Court Of Kerala & Anr.) Many agree that our society is not mature enough to handle unlimited freedom of speech when it comes to Judiciary. The reasons are not very difficult to understand.
Lawyers bodies, NGOs, political outfits, retired judges and scholars in India are fully capable of commenting upon and correcting unfair and unjust judicial verdicts. Our parliamentarians have experience and wisdom to enact required laws. We do not need uninvited, motivated and agenda-ridden comments from foreign existent and foreign funded agencies on our judicial system. These foreign bodies must realize that their conduct is a double-edged sword which will lead to international melee and free-for-all scenario where each country attacking the legal system and judgments delivered by the Courts of another country.
S.Basavaraj, Advocate, Bangalore. Member, Karnataka State Bar Council
Daksha Legal 