The Supreme Court’s order imposing a sentence of one year’s imprisonment on Zaheera Sheikh, key witness in the Best Bakery case, for contempt of court for making false statements on oath and filing false affidavits, sends a timely signal that witnesses cannot play games with courts. Justice Arijit Pasayat has rightly emphasised that acquittals resulting from witnesses turning hostile undermine ‘‘public confidence in the administration of justice, which may ultimately pave way for anarchy, oppression, injustice resulting in complete breakdown and collapse of edifice of rule of law’’. However a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding six months would have been in keeping with the Contempt of Courts Act and also met the ends of justice in view of the trauma Zaheera underwent on account of the killing of her dear ones in the communal carnage.

Send your comments to the columnist Name Your E-Mail Your Comments

It would be tragic if lessons of the Jessica Lal and Best Bakery cases are in course of time forgotten. The courageous role of Teesta Setalvad in the Best Bakery case should never be forgotten.

Judicial reprimand: Strong expressions are not uncommon in judicial dissents, especially in the US Supreme Court. Justice Scalia in his pungent dissents has frequently ridiculed the reasoning and conclusion of his brethren in the majority. Superior courts have at times given a dressing down to the judge whose judgment was reversed. Lord Denning was a special recipient of this treatment by the House of Lords. But Denning was a sturdy soul and could not care less.

Recently the Court of Appeal in England came down heavily on the trial judge. The issue involved was whether a doctor who deliberately interrupts life-prolonging treatment with the intention thereby of terminating the patient’s life, in the face of a competent patient’s expressed wish to be kept alive, can be guilty of murder. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Phillips, reversed the judgment of Justice Munby and made some caustic remarks. ‘‘The judge’s erudition and industry are self-evidently on display throughout its 225 paragraphs. A great deal of what is contained in the body of the judgment is uncontroversial. Having taken the view, however, that much of the judge’s industry is misplaced, it would plainly be inappropriate for this court to respond with a judgment of equal length. On the other hand, it is equally inappropriate to leave the judgment to be seized on and dissected by lawyers seeking supportive material for future cases...We counsel strongly against selective use of Munby J’s judgment in future cases.’’ Justice Munby may find solace in the thought that he is in the illustrious company of Lord Denning.

Invoking god: It is bizarre that blessings of the Almighty are sought by opposing sides in a war. The reason is that each side believes in the justness of its cause. It is not only suicide bombers who invoke the divine for carrying out their murderous missions. President Bush has reportedly claimed that invasion of Iraq was ‘‘a mission from God’’. Taking the cue, Prime Minister Tony Blair has invoked God for his decision to go to war in Iraq and in true Christian spirit has said that he is ready to meet his Maker and answer for ‘‘those who have died or have been horribly maimed as a result of my decisions’’. Oh God, when will politicians stop bandying your name for their ungodly acts.