Justice Arifin assassinated Anwar at 12 pm Malaysian time bowing to his political masters

A critical appreciation of Anwar may well be the best way to understand a charismatic man who brought together idealism and pragmatism in ingenious ways Unlike the politicians of today who hire PR agencies to air brush their image, Anwar was brutally honest about his flaws l. Maybe a study of his weaknesses may paint a more human portrait of a man now relegated to jail have a distinctly negative assessment of Anwar and believe he intervened in ways that prevented history from taking its own course. But like all polarised opinion, neither reflects the truth,”  pointing to the need  to understand Anwar without seeking to praise or bury him.Justice Arifin a self-righteous, docile school-monitor of sorts, we have effectively defanged  Anwar of his more revolutionary ideas.have helped bury as efficiently and  turn Anwar into a Mahatama

"You could have carved your names. But you chose to remain on the dark side," he adds, prompting Justice Arifin to tell him to stop.When Anwar refused, the judges left.However, the opposition leader continues speaking in a loud tone, vowing that he will continue to fight for justice and freedom. "My soul will not surrender."
 Human Rights Watch condemns the court ruling, calling it a travesty of justice.

 judges chose to leave the bench when Anwar raised the issue of political conspiracy, and criticised them for "bowing to their political masters"."Najib’s government has persisted in its politically motivated prosecution of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim at the expense of democratic freedoms and the rights to non-discrimination and privacy for all Malaysians.“Allowing this travesty of justice to stand will further undermine respect for rights and democracy in Malaysia,” says its deputy Asia director Phil 

Judges are meant to serve the people, criticising judges is not a crime

In a recent judgment, a bench of the Indian Supreme Court convicted a Kerala ex-MLA for contempt of court for calling some judges fools, and sentenced him to four weeks imprisonment.

In my opinion this judgment is incorrect, totally unacceptable in a democracy, and violates the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

In a democracy the people are supreme and all authorities, whether President or Prime Minister of India, other ministers, judges, legislators, bureaucrats, police, army and so on are servants of the people. Since the people are the masters and judges their servants, the people have a right to criticise judges just as a master has the right to criticise his servant.

Why should Indian judges be so touchy? When the House of Lords delivered the judgment in the 1987 Spycatcher case, a prominent newspaper published as its headline “You Fools”.

Fali Nariman, the eminent Indian lawyer, was in London at that time and he asked Lord Templeman who had delivered the majority judgment why the judges did not take action for contempt of court. Lord Templeman smiled, and said that judges in England do not take notice of such comments.

In Balogh vs Crown Court, a case contested in England in 1975, the defendant told the judge “You are a humourless automaton. Why don’t you self destruct?” The judge smiled, but took no action.

In my opinion the Supreme Court judges, before convicting the former Kerala MLA, should have reminded themselves of the following words of the celebrated Lord Denning in R vs Police Commissioner (1968): “Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself.”

A basic defect in the law of contempt of court in India is that it is uncertain. Nariman described it as “dog’s law”. The British jurist Bentham said that when a dog does something nasty you beat it. Similarly, the law of contempt of court is known only when someone is punished, and thus it is a standing threat to freedom of speech.

We may consider an example. In Duda’s case (1988) the facts were that a Union cabinet minister had said that the Supreme Court sympathised with zamindars and bank magnates. He further said “FERA violators, bride burners, and a whole horde of reactionaries have found their haven in the Supreme Court” and that Supreme Court judges have “unconcealed sympathy for haves”.

A contempt of court petition was filed against the minister but no action was taken by the Supreme Court. Nariman wondered whether, if the statement was made by a common man and not a minister, that person would have gone unpunished.

But in the case against EMS Namboodiripad, former chief minister of Kerala, he was convicted for contempt of court for saying that courts were biased in favour of the rich, which is practically the same thing that was said by the Union minister in Duda’s case.

Where then is the certainty and consistency in the law of contempt of court? Is it not “dog’s law” as Bentham called it?

Moreover, it is settled law that contempt jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction. In other words, a judge is not bound to take action even if contempt of court has indeed been committed. Personally in my 20 years’ career as a judge I dismissed perhaps 99% of contempt petitions, saying I was not inclined to take any action.

I remember once when I was sitting in my chamber at lunchtime in the Madras High Court, two senior judges came to meet me looking very upset. It appeared that a leaflet had been circulated against them calling them fools.

On reading the leaflet i started laughing. At this they got even more upset, and said to me, “Chief, we have been defamed, and you are laughing.”

I replied, “Look, you better learn how to ignore all this, or you will get blood pressure. So many things are said in a democracy and you must develop a thick skin, as these are occupational hazards.”

At this the judges tore up the leaflet and also started laughing.

 ‘The Prime Minister’s New Clothes’. The plot revolved around Najib who was tricked into believing that he was wearing a special outfit when in fact he was naked. His sycophants complimented him for his wonderful choice of clothing. When the  Prime Minister went out on the street, scared commoners praised the invisible suit. Finally, an innocent little kid screamed: “Look, the Emperor has no clothes!”

The one loud sentence sent the entire town into shock. However, since it was the truth, nobody could deny it anymore. And eventually, the Prime Minister  came back to his senses.

UMNO desperately needs that kid. Someone perhaps who could stand up at an  convention and shout: “Look! Najib is not working at all!”One can almost predict the silence in the auditorium thereafter, akin to the silence in the town square. The first reaction would be denial, or even attacking the person who said it. Better still, label this columnist elitist, biased, paid, bigoted, idiot, evil, ignorant or any other negative adjective that comes to mind. However, as the Enrique song goes — you can run, you can hide but you can’t escape my love (in this case, the truth).

This truth is particularly bitter because the Congress has little idea on how to fix the problem. As many say, if the family doesn’t work, what is UMNO? Right now, the party hasn’t done much besides cashing in on Malay’s legacy.