To Sue or Not to Sue

A couple of weeks back, the Supreme Court announced that it would seriously consider the matter of banning Santa-Banta jokes on the grounds that they’re racist and offensive to Sikhs and insensitive to the feelings of that particular community and belittles them in the eyes of the public and other such mumbo-jumbo that is generally the case whenever people are outraged. Something that, surprise surprise, tends to happen with an inordinate degree of frequency in this country.

Take a deep breath and think about this. Santa Banta jokes and the Supreme Court – you never thought you’d hear them mentioned in the same sentence, did you? Imagine being a Supreme Court judge. You’ve been the brightest one in your class back in school and were always earmarked for big things. As you grew up, instead of squandering away that early promise like Vinod Kambli, you put in the hard yards and lived up to the expectations. You got into law school and graduated top of the class. You thrived in the high-pressure environment of a ruthless law firm/government law department and acquired a reputation for being among the best in your profession. You won high profile cases and rose rapidly through the ranks before finally being a judge in the highest court the country had to offer. Not for you making a living doing the usual banal jobs like convincing people why one TV is better than the other or investing another person’s money in dodgy financial instruments while getting paid for it.

No sir, you were a Supreme Court judge and would decide on matters of grave national importance. Like, um, whether to ban Santa Banta jokes. Well, ok, to be fair, those aren’t the only type of cases that come up in the Supreme Court – there are enough landmark judgments made that have changed the face of the justice system in the country. Still, it must be an odd sort of job when you go from deciding on gay rights one day to deciding on whether Santa Banta jokes should be banned another day. You’d probably go into office having no clue what’s coming your way.

Supreme Court Judge: So what matters do I have to preside on this week?
Supreme Court Judge’s Intern: Well, the matter of the 2G scam is up for hearing today.

Supreme Court Judge: That case is still pending? How dreadfully boring.

Supreme Court Judge’s Intern: Cheer up! Tomorrow you have to announce your verdict on the matter of banning Santa Banta jokes.

In some ways, this probably mirrors the bipolar nature of the Indian judicial system. Ordinarily, our judicial system is not the sort to encourage people to sue each other willy-nilly. If anything, it’s quite the opposite. Men of fierce determination and indomitable spirit, who bestride the worlds of their respective fields like a colossus; would sport a resigned, haunted look when it came to taking a matter to court. It mattered little that they had an ironclad, open and shut case to back them up. “What’s the point? It’ll go on for years and it’ll only end up being too much of a hassle – it’s just not worth it”, they’ll say in a tone of abject defeat. That their judgment was unmistakably sound could not be disputed. Even in cases where someone emerges victorious, it would hardly seem worth the trouble when you’d cast your eyes upon such headlines in the Indian papers:

Court Orders Nestle to Pay Rs 10,000 to Consumer

A consumer court has ordered Nestle to pay Rs 9,877 to a consumer who found a dead rat's tail in his packet of Maggi noodles. The consumer, a vegetarian, had not noticed the rat's tail while cooking due to a power cut and was midway through his meal when the power returned. As a result he was ostracized by his family and community and also suffered considerable emotional trauma. The verdict was announced after a protracted legal battle that lasted six and a half years; during which the man lost all his life savings, was deserted by his family, suffered an accident on his way to court one day and was even pecked in the eye by an irate pigeon in a courtroom one day.

This is quite the opposite of the scenario in the US, where you’d routinely come across articles that look like this:

Burglars Sue Home Owners for ‘On-the-Job’ Injuries

Two burglars attempting to rob a home have sued the owners for sustaining injuries over the course of the burglary. The burglars were rummaging through the closet when a bowling ball kept on the top shelf slid down and hit one of them on the head before falling and hitting the other burglar on his foot. The burglars insist that the top shelves should only be used to store lightweight objects and the botched attempt has made them the laughing stock of the criminal community. They say that the only earnings they can expect now are comparisons to Laurel & Hardy, and sought compensation to help them tide over the bleak future prospect in their line of work.

The above might make you think that our courts have at least got something right, even though most cases would take at least half a decade to be resolved. Sadly, though, this no-nonsense spirit of the Indian courts does not extend to matters concerning ‘the greater good’. The Public Interest Litigation may have started as a fanciful socialist whim or may have simply been a hankering for some diversionary frivolity. But it was just that little window of opportunity that has been burst open by misguided altruists, easily offended religious zealots and assorted jobless busybodies.

On the bright side, it has finally brought me back to write something on this blog!