Rakesh Bhatnagar: The seven deadly sins and court

The 7 Deadly Sins, also known as the Capital Vices or Cardinal Sins, are a classification of objectionable vices that have been used since early Christian times to educate and instruct followers concerning fallen humanity’s tendency to sin. The currently recognised version of these sins is usually given as wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.

A Wikipedia input says the Catholic Church divides sin into two categories: venial sins — in which guilt is relatively minor — and the more severe mortal sins. Theologically, a mortal sin is believed to destroy the life of grace within the person, and thus creates the threat of eternal damnation.

“Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us — charity — necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart, which is normally accomplished [for Catholics] within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation.”

The Deadly Sins do not belong to an additional category of sin. Rather, they are the sins that are seen as the origin of other sins. A “deadly sin” can be either venial or mortal, depending on the situation, but they are called ‘capital’ because they engender other sins, other vices,” Wikipedia says.

However, a former Supreme Court justice, Ruma Pal, has recalled the seven sins in the context of “the independence of the judiciary and judicial system”.

The first sin is to brush things under the carpet, turning a Nelsonian eye to “(the) injudicious conduct of a colleague”.

Ironically, judges are less hesitant in using the clause of independence of judiciary to take action in contempt against critics while using the ground of same independence to  cover a certain  sins, some venial and others not so venial.

Nothing destroys a judge’s credibility more than a perception that he or she decides according to closeness to one of the parties to the litigation or what has come to be described in the corridors of courts as ‘face value’, a judge who was known to have strongly opposed elevation of some of the controversial incumbents to the top court said.

She said ‘hypocrisy’, ‘secrecy’, ‘plagiarism’, ‘intellectual arrogance or intellectual dishonesty’ and ‘nepotism’ are among the sins that, she feels, the judiciary has been laced with.

That these words have come straight from a daring judge’s mouth at a gathering of judges, academicians, civil right activists, lawyers and former judges gives adequate assurance that highlighting the perception about the top judiciary wouldn’t be taken as a contempt.

It is felt that the principle of institutional integrity that chief justice of India SH Kapadia stressed on in the former CVC chief PJ Thomas’s removal case must be enforced in the selection of judges at every level of dispensation system.