JOIN USEveryone knows that public discourse in India has deteriorated badly, with norms of common decency, decorum and respect for others being flagrantly violated and professional conduct in many areas finding new lows. This has been seen as a reflection of changes in the attitudes and standards of conduct in society and politics and has caused concern. But some areas like the judiciary, especially the higher judiciary, have held themselves up and have been largely unaffected. But the performance of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in the Supreme Court last week and even earlier, on matters relating to the plight of migrant workers which was before the court, was most unedifying and lowered many standards. Mehta did not conduct himself as a senior lawyer, an official of the court and the second-highest judicial officer of the government but as a partisan representative of the government with no respect for the high threshold of conduct needed in the nation's highest court.
Mehta’s statements in the court stood out for their misrepresentation of facts, lack of respect for and even vilification of other lawyers and the media, exposition of wrong and untenable positions on issues, and a failure to understand not just the legal but also the basic humanitarian aspect of the matter before the court. He had told the court some weeks ago that there were no migrants on the road, when the whole nation was witness to tens of thousands of them trekking home. He described those who reported on and photographed the plight of the migrants as “vultures” and questioned the intentions and credentials of those who spoke for them and brought the matter to the court, calling them prophets of doom who spread negativity and who showed no courtesy to the nation. Criticism of the government’s inadequate and insensitive response to the migrant workers’ crisis is not discourtesy to the nation, and the solicitor general should not have parroted the identity between the government and the nation which ignorant and ill-intentioned political partisans assert these days. He tried to contend before the court what its duty is and what judicial independence means, and even told it that some high courts, which sought to help the migrants, were “running a parallel government’’.
Law officers should not be so blatantly partisan and abandon professional etiquette and codes of behaviour. They should not devalue their positions and set bad precedents. Mehta should be admonished and restrained from such obnoxious conduct. A government law officer should be on the side of truth and justice and should not bring down the standards of the court with his conduct.