It is a sad day for Justice Kannan of Punjab and Haryana High Court for having to conclude his blogging experience. A sad day for his readers as well. Read the reasons for his last post here. While many of us see increased number of hits to this blog as an incentive for frequent blogging, Justice Kannan, however, felt extremely uncomfortable with the growing number of visits to his blog. But is he not himself responsible for this sudden interest in his blog? Is he correct in concluding that his judicial duties are incompatible with his role as a blogger?
Well, Justice Kannan could have simply continued to write on his blog. His impression that a judge must make himself known only through his judgments is, with respects, without much merit.
A good reason for a judge to stay away from a blog could be a simple desire to remain anonymous. It is that simple.
And I have always felt that a Judge ought not to obstinately hold on to a certain view and constipate his mind in the face of merit in an opposite view. A judge who writes a book or a blog is more likely to insure himself against blocking his own mind. A blog is a superior option than a book.
Take the Justices of the United States Supreme Court. Too much attention to the voting pattern of the Judges there has now led to the mushrooming of specialists who will coach a lawyer on what argument to address a judge with. If these specialists are having any success, the business of justice must be seen to have become a farce and a waste of public resources.
I think that like anyone of us, Justice Kannan is free to blog or not..it is his prerogative and we should only respect his decision as far as his personal life is concerned. It was a thoughful gesture on his part to have let people interested in law to take a peek into his world of thoughts and opinions. I just hope that he would continue to write, for another blog or for a book that may come out after his retirement. His opinions and the questions he poses should not go unobserved only to get lost somewhere from where it cannot be traced back.
CLC, Faculty of Law
Join the discussion