Beat a retreat

Sir — Justice A.R. Lakshmanan’s reaction to the letter that allegedly sullied his reputation is inexplicable (“Mulayam judge chokes over letter”, March 17). In the course of his long career as a judge, Lakshmanan must have been threatened or maligned many times. It is thus difficult to understand why he reacted in such a manner to an anonymous letter, which predicted that the verdict in this particular case would be in favour of the chief minister, Mulayam Singh Yadav. It seems that the judge is not keen to be a part of such a high-profile case. As an apex court judge, Lakshmanan should consider the consequences of his breaking down in court. If judges henceforth withdraw from such cases, the end result will be a complete breakdown in the law and order situation in the country. Despite its drawbacks, the judiciary is still the pillar of Indian democracy. Hence, it was imperative for the judge to put on a brave front and go ahead with the case.

This episode also brings to light another serious matter. If the reputation of a judge can be smeared so easily, one can easily gauge the predicament of witnesses in controversial cases.

Yours faithfully,
Anuradha Adhikary, Siliguri

Sir — Justice Lakshmanan’s action will encourage miscreants to meddle in judicial matters and delay cases. Lakshmanan should hand over the letter he received to the Central Bureau of Investigation team that is probing the case. It should not be difficult for the sleuths to trace the phone number from which the letter was faxed. Nevertheless, Justice Lakshmanan has at least disclosed his reason for wanting to pull out of the case. On most occasions, judges tend to avoid explaining the transfer of a case. Often, cases are transferred because the judge concerned has been approached to work out a compromise. A law should be enacted to make it compulsory for the judge to explain the transfer and name the person seeking to bribe or threaten him. In this case, the letter that Lakshmanan received should be made public. There is no point keeping the letter a ‘secret’, especially when its contents and the judge’s comments have come out in the open.

Yours faithfully,
Subhash C. Agrawal, Dariba, Delhi

Sir — It is shocking to learn that judges are being prevented from conducting impartial trials. It seems that the growing might of the Supreme Court has inconvenienced criminals and corrupt politicians to a great extent. Thus, they are now desperate to cast their influence and change verdicts to protect their own interests .

The government should unearth the motive of the person who tried to pressurize Lakshmanan into quitting a case that is bound to have repercussions on national politics. The Lakshmanan affair also makes one fearful of the plight of ordinary whistle-blowers when apex court judges can be threatened or humiliated.

Yours faithfully,
Arvind K. Pandey, Allahabad

With an iron hand

Sir — In the article, “A babe in the woods” (March 21), K.P. Nayar appears to be concerned with the predicament faced by Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, the Marxist chief minister, over the forcible acquisition of farmers’ land to set up industries. He has cited a few examples of momentous decisions taken by communist leaders that were unwelcome at first, but proved prudent later. The article also seems to condone the army violence at Tiananmen Square. Nayar writes, “If Yang…had not taken that difficult decision nearly 18 years ago, China may have…certainly not emerged as the next superpower and competitor to the United States of America”. How could Nayar draw the conclusion that China would have languished without the dictatorial style of functioning on the part of Communists? Many countries have prospered even though they do not follow the communist ideology. South Korea, which adopted a free market, is ranked among the top 10 economies of the world, whereas communist North Korea is struggling to survive. Cuba, another communist nation, shares North Korea’s fate. Even the erstwhile Soviet Union, which practised communism for over 70 years, could not catch up with the US in the end. The strength of a welfare State is not in its might but in its capacity to improve the quality of life for its citizens. The Marxists keep on harping about the might of the State, and detest free speech. Their brand of socialism is thus unacceptable to those who believe in freedom.

Yours faithfully,
Asoke C. Banerjee, Calcutta

Sir — How could K.P. Nayar defend the massacre at Tiananmen? As an Indian, I would be pleased if China follows in the steps of the former Soviet Union, as that would help India cut down on its defense expenditure. Today, Communists are an endangered species. But not all threatened species deserve protection and preservation. Ratan Tata or Salem, unfortunately, are not registered voters in Bengal and will have no direct role in installing a government. It is the people who elect a government. Hence, citizens should have the right to have a say about the form of investments a State should make.

Yours faithfully,
Bappaditya Pal, Calcutta