The mushroom syndrome and the common man:
The other day, Ms Helle Lyng stirred a storm, where a high-pressure trough was already holding court. Yet, she used her free press credentials to yell hell. Alas, on deep diving one comes up with the ‘pearls in oysters’ that her press is not free, freer or the freest in the world, at all, living literally on government dole. All this did not cross her mind or did not matter to her to hop on a mustang and trot off.
Temerity must be her other name, when on the same horse, she wanted to trot over continents for a follow up interview with an LLG in the sub-continent. She could not be faulted for her ignorance that already here, there is an army of LLGs doing just the same in the name of freedom of expression. The difference is these LLGs operate with offshore inputs and she trying to recover from an offshore fiasco. In this melee, how she will dig out a scoop must be known only to her or possibly to her handlers. For people like her freedom of press or free press means only one thing – to catapult some mud and count coins.
One agitated common man had some oysters with pearls for such journos. “If you look inwards in your own country, so many rotten things will stand out for your free press reporting or bashing. Why don’t you do it? Became tired or indifferent? The reason you bring your free press card here is simple - this populous country has many LLGs doing this work by routine and maybe you think a ‘foreign fodder’ will pack more chocolate than the real Switzerland and Belgium chocolates?
How would you feel when I decide to hang a free press card on a lanyard from this subcontinent and come to your shores to show you all a Belgium mirror? Would you not feel insulted when a ‘free press’ from ny country comes to your shores with a ledger to detail the wealth looted from our ancestors by the so-called advanced nation? This country did not choose you. You are welcome as a guest. Remember, journalism did not choose you. You made a choice. Make it count positively."
This common man had some more oysters with pearls to share with LLGs of his country. “Deep state, light state or nebulous state has ill-gotten wealth and funnel it for playing vicarious games. Lining your pockets with these funds, you the inhouse LLGs, try at best you might to hiss like a cobra without its head. So befuddled in your thinking, you all have never introspected about the lack of appeal to the masses, as you are busy in filing appeals for bails and skipping appearances in courts. Without feeling shame, you LLGs label everything as a human rights violation and exactly with which that journalist from the freest press of the world naively bought and brazenly tried to sell with the help of a charismatic LLG.”
He had some leftover oysters with pearls. “Politicians blame industrialists forgetting the job opportunities they have created but happily dip their hands in the revenue generated by them. Local politicians blame another far away government for failing to create employment opportunities in their constituencies. Is it not easier to point an index finger instead of lifting a little finger to do something constructive?
All of you, look inwards, at your own country. So many things will stand out deserving appreciation and in need of your help to flourish further. Why don’t you try it instead of ideological bashings? The reason is important - this populous country has many LLGs doing this work by routine thinking that a ‘foreign fodder’ has more chocolate than the real Switzerland and Belgium chocolate.”
Note: Please do not mistake the common man as
anti-press freedom and anti-LLGs. His lament was the LLGs suffering selective
or elective amnesia. They conveniently forget the other rules and regulations
followed in those countries holding the banner on freedom of press which if
applied here you all will raise against it shouting *ism. Kindly wipe your
crocodile tears with that foreign tissue paper!
Recusal, a judicial boomerang?
The common man had another straw to clutch
about the ‘recusal’. Like all the common men, he had opinions to share within
quotes and unquote. “I have never been a litigant but avidly follow cases that
involve top-flight politicians and other hi-profile
individuals. I am blessed for the first part and frustrated with the second
part. In all these court room dramas, my heart goes out to the other party that
gets challan for traffic violation for walking on the footpath.
With nostalgia, I may recollect the longest serving public figure, or the highest bridge ever built and the meanest enemies a country had faced but shudder to think about the never-ending legal proceedings, which prima facie should have ended with an ex parte decision!
Why does it not happen, though such cases are mounted on evidence and argued based on jurisprudence. The problem crops up when during important turning point of the case, the evidence disappears or gets misplaced or outright becomes corrupted. The other party suffers in anguish, realising the case may survive the lifetime of the accused and the petitioner.”
Becoming serious, the common man started counting the steps that eventually leads to a ‘recusal’. “The initial help comes from the interning specialists – legal luminaries with flapping gowns and tall legal standing usually appear in the hi-profile cases. Against this tide, the petitioner braves expenses, threats and intimidations hoping that at least the gowns that wear PIL (public interest litigation) labels on their sleeves to come out in their avatar of pro bono Público to support. Has this happened in any of these hi-profile cases? The answer would be a loud, screeching “NO, No, no” without banging a gavel. How could they, as they only want to fight with the government?”
Still smarting under the injustice, the common man traces another route by which a case that is ripe for judgement stage gets the accused a legal lease of life. Suddenly, a judge recuses from further proceedings, which might be a moral stand for the honourable judge, which leaves the petitioner with a question ‘where was this moral stand hiding till now? Is the petitioner not dealt with a body blow, legally speaking? Is not the petitioner’s right for a fair adjudication given the short shrift by the recusal in the middle of the proceedings?
Is it not a fact that this had prevented the petitioner in appearing before another judge to proceed with the case? Halfway through, if the bug of recusal can bite, who gives the guarantee that one more recusal bug is not lying in wait?
Another heavy blow awaits the petitioner when ‘recusal’ is delivered on the verge of deciding the outcome or after deciding on it but before making the pronouncement. If recusal just before delivering a judgement has serious implications for self and the complainant, why did not the bench attempt to overrule on its own discomfort? Should not the seriousness of the issue deserve an urgent resolution? Why lecture the complainant at this late hour on which sections of jurisprudence the case should have been filed in the first place?
Does not this eleventh hour recusal pose serious questions on the lawmakers, the benches, judges, lawyers in delivering the avowed justice impartially? Is this not meeting out a punishment to the deserved rather than the requested legal remedy? Will the complainant have enough fight left, to pursue the matter?
In an ironical twist, the table (judge’s bench) gets turned when a party appearing to defend the indictment moves a motion requesting the bench to recuse itself from hearing the case. For a layman, reading about countless adjournments, long gaps in between the hearings and judgement, this ‘stall motion technique’ appeared like ‘the judge getting the taste of own medicine’. But the pity is this could happen to an honest judge!
In reality, to make the presiding judge to run away from the case in an attempt to blindside ‘Gandhari holding the scales of justice in hand’ and inviting the Duryodhana effect!
Note: This common man is a law-abiding citizen and
has not even collected a traffic violation challan. His lament was that the law
is being bent to the will of a few. There is no hue and cry or a black gown
march when an adjudicator recuses or is asked to recuse. Where are the LLGs & PIL specialists holding
the ‘free the judiciary’ banners hiding, when these acts happen in a court room?
No comments:
Post a Comment