IN the current row over the Supreme Court’s decision in the Panama case, one is reminded of the famous legal luminary and judge, Baron Alfred Denning. The late judge was known far and wide and respected for his acerbic wit and solid support to the ordinary citizen against mighty corporations and petty officialdom.

Unlike most of the judiciary, Denning firmly believed that the press should not only have access to the courts, but it should also have the freedom to criticise magistrates and judges. He believed all legal proceedings should be held in public.

To support his views, he would quote another famous English philosopher, jurist and social reformer, Jeremy Bentham, a leading theorist in the philosophy of law and a political radical. He advocated individual and economic freedom, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression and equal rights for women, and the right to divorce.

Quoting Bentham, Denning once said: “In the darkness of secrecy all sorts of things can go wrong. If things are really done in public you can see that the judge does behave himself, the newspapers can comment on it if he misbehaves — it keeps everyone in order. ‘If you are an advocate you want your client to win. If you are a judge you don’t care who wins exactly. All you are concerned about is justice.”

I wonder where does anyone see any harm in it.

Mazhar Butt

Karachi

Published in Dawn, August 17th, 2017