Uncategorized

Courts have a mandate to determine whether a public action by a public functionary is in conformity with the letter and spirit of the law, and that determination cannot possibly be predicated on whether the offending public authority/ functionary belongs to this or that “side.”

by Sekar Reporter · February 22, 2026

[22/02, 09:33] sekarreporter1: Add The Wire As Your Trusted Source

हिंदी
తెలుగు
اردو
HOMEPOLITICSECONOMYWORLDSECURITYLAWSCIENCESOCIETYCULTUREEDITORS-PICKVIDEOAdvertisement
Non-profit. Reader-funded. Independent.

Donate Now
Advertisement
LAWLordships, This ‘Other Side’ Jurisprudence Is a Self-Goal

Harish Khare
2 Hours ago
Courts have a mandate to determine whether a public action by a public functionary is in conformity with the letter and spirit of the law, and that determination cannot possibly be predicated on whether the offending public authority/ functionary belongs to this or that “side.”

File photo of Assam chief minister Himanta zbiswa Sarma. Photo: PTI
Real journalism holds power accountable
Since 2015, The Wire has done just that.
But we can continue only with your support.

Contribute Now
It is open season for every wise and pretentious person to join the chorus bemoaning the crumbling of the “rule-based” global order but no one seems to be bothered by the unhampered march of our domestic rule-based disorder. And, what should be most disquieting is that the higher judiciary is unwittingly lending its imprimatur to the incipient “ordered” disorder.This, perhaps, an extreme judgment, but no other inference suggests itself after a Chief Justice of India-led bench propounded a jurisprudence of “the other side”. The bench had before it a petition filed by some eminent people, seeking some kind of restraint on hate speeches by many chief ministers and officials. The three judges, in their wisdom, thought the petition was not “objective” and, what is more, the petitioner was chided because, as the lordships put it, “you have not cited a single example from the other side.”This logic will surely be baffling to any citizen. In a civilised society and a constitutionally-governed polity, there can be no “other side;” there is only the law and it is for the judiciary to say what the law is. The judge has a mandate to determine whether a public action by a public functionary is in conformity with the letter and spirit of the law, and that determination cannot possibly be predicated on whether the offending public authority/ functionary belongs to this or that “side.” A court is an arbitration forum; it is not a debating society.
The cause of justice – and, constitutional order – will inevitably be ill-served if an equivalence is sought to be introduced between the all-powerful state and the citizen.The judicial dharma is plain and uncomplicated: ensure an equilibrium in our collective and ordered life. That constitutional obligation has been lost sight of by more than one bench of the higher judiciary. The result is that at the end of the day, we find the authoritarian juggernaut inching forward, almost stealthily.Advertisement
Even if we maintain the fiction that judges have no political or ideological biases or belong neither to this “side” or “the other side,” they cannot possibly be oblivious to the fact that the Union Government and more than two-thirds of our state governments belong to one political party. That means, the “state” is nothing more than a political coterie that has a “mandate” to use executive authority. And, even when such a mandated government uses this executive authority to aggressively pursue a partisan political agenda, its actions must necessarily pass the test of legality and constitutional validity. If that test is judged on a basis of ‘this side’ or ‘the other side’, the court runs the risk of reducing itself to a political court.Perhaps such a self-inflicted infirmity has already eroded the apex court’s judicial iqbal. Newspapers report regularly how this or that authority or agency – from the Election Commission to the Enforcement Directorate down to district magistrates—is merrily ignoring judicial suggestions or expressions of disapproval. Judicial chastisement no longer seems to trouble anyone, it is like water off the executive duck’s back.Advertisement
The other day, Justice Joymalya Bagchi was slapping the Nati
[22/02, 09:33] Meta AI: The article “Lordships, This ‘Other Side’ Jurisprudence Is a Self-Goal” by Harish Khare in The Wire critiques the Madras High Court’s decision to dismiss a petition seeking restraint on hate speeches by chief ministers and officials, citing the petitioner’s failure to provide examples from “the other side”. The author argues that this approach is flawed, as it implies equivalence between the state and the citizen, and undermines the judiciary’s role in upholding the law.

The article highlights concerns about the higher judiciary’s increasing tendency to lend legitimacy to executive actions, potentially eroding its own authority. It emphasizes that judges must evaluate actions based on their legality and constitutionality, rather than perceived political affiliations.

Would you like to know more about recent judgments from the Madras High Court or discuss the implications of this article?
[22/02, 09:33] Meta AI: இந்த கட்டுரையில், மதுரை உயர் நீதிமன்றம், தலைமை அமைச்சர்கள் மற்றும் அதிகாரிகளின் வெறுப்பு பேச்சுகளுக்கு கட்டுப்பாடு விதிக்க வேண்டும் என்ற வழக்கை தள்ளுபடி செய்ததை குறித்து விமர்சிக்கிறது. “மறுபக்கம்” என்ற கருத்தை நீதிமன்றம் கையாண்ட விதம் தவறானது என்று கூறுகிறது.

நீதிமன்றம் சட்டத்தை நிலைநாட்ட வேண்டும், அரசியல் தொடர்புகளை கருத்தில் கொள்ளக்கூடாது என்று வலியுறுத்துகிறது.

இந்த கட்டுரையின் தாக்கம் அல்லது மதுரை உயர் நீதிமன்றத்தின் சமீபத்திய தீர்ப்புகள் பற்றி அறிய விரும்புகிறீர்களா?
[22/02, 09:34] sekarreporter1: [22/02, 09:33] Meta AI: The article “Lordships, This ‘Other Side’ Jurisprudence Is a Self-Goal” by Harish Khare in The Wire critiques the Madras High Court’s decision to dismiss a petition seeking restraint on hate speeches by chief ministers and officials, citing the petitioner’s failure to provide examples from “the other side”. The author argues that this approach is flawed, as it implies equivalence between the state and the citizen, and undermines the judiciary’s role in upholding the law.

Would you like to know more about recent judgments from the Madras High Court or discuss the implications of this article?
[22/02, 09:33] sekarreporter1: Tamil
[22/02, 09:34] Meta AI: இந்த கட்டுரையில், மதுரை உயர் நீதிமன்றம், தலைமை அமைச்சர்கள் மற்றும் அதிகாரிகளின் வெறுப்பு பேச்சுகளுக்கு கட்டுப்பாடு விதிக்க வேண்டும் என்ற வழக்கை தள்ளுபடி செய்ததை குறித்து விமர்சிக்கிறது. “மறுபக்கம்” என்ற கருத்தை நீதிமன்றம் கையாண்ட விதம் தவறானது என்று கூறுகிறது.

இந்த கட்டுரையின் தாக்கம் அல்லது மதுரை உயர் நீதிமன்றத்தின் சமீபத்திய தீர்ப்புகள் பற்றி அறிய விரும்புகிறீர்களா? 😊