Judiciary can't play extrajudicial vigilante

Being enthusiastic about sending out a strong message against wrongdoing is one thing. It's quite another to be so overenthusiastic that one sidesteps due judicial process altogether for the purpose of virtue signalling. This becomes especially deviant when it's the judiciary that takes on the role of 'extrajudicial' vigilante. Last week, the Supreme Court, while dismissing a sexual harassment case for not being lodged within the mandatory 3-month period, astonishingly ordered that the 'offence' (sic) - described in the dismissed judgment - be part of the defendant's resume. The addendum is incredible because it subverts the very pillar of modern jurisprudence - one is innocent until proven guilty - and delivers an extrajudicial guilty 'verdict'. The purpose being that the 'crime' he was cleared of 'haunts the wrongdoer (sic) forever'.

This undermining of law by Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale against the vice-chancellor of West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences hardly inspires confidence in the highest court of the land, members of which self-righteously dealt out newfangled punishment for an unfound crime. Indeed, it smacks of conflating sin - for which, even when suspected, delivering papal-style punishment is beyond the court's writ - with crime.

This is going down a very slippery, dangerous slope. Today, it's extrajudicial punishment in the form of 'being branded' for suspected sexual harassment the court has legally cleared the defendant of. Tomorrow, a similar 'mystical' conclusion may be drawn for other crimes, murder included. Reputational damage cannot be dealt as a 'bargain' in lieu of harsher punishment. The Supreme Court must remove this absurd, dangerous moral-rousing 'direction'.