Law in a democracy: an eventual choice between elective dictatorship or mob justice?

As a lawyer, one is hardwired to distinguish between what is legal and what is illegal. One is hardwired to defend those who society may view as despicable for their actions, which may be repugnant to one's sensibilities, but are not illegal. After all, as defenders of democracy, lawyers are hardwired to jealously defend the rule of law, against the rule of sentiment. Aren't we?

Juxtaposition

Juxtaposition: an instance of placing close together or side by side, especially for comparison or contrast.

--

I have spent the past three months lamenting not living in Leiden anymore. Not to mention my friends, I sorely miss all the little corners of the quaint city that were the source of much joy whilst I lived there. The canals I walked on when they froze, and kayaked in when not, that one little corner of the library which got me in the zone not matter how distracted I may have been, the cosiest cafés I know… My apartment and its many windows, two of which faced east and west, that kept me awake during summer solstice for over 24-hours, only three of which were spent waiting for the sunlight to reappear.

Supreme but not infallible

“What a slap on the faces of the corrupt” exulted a jubilant journalist friend, reacting to Supreme Court judgment in the 2G public interest litigation. The statement aptly articulates the sentiment of the Indian judiciary. The sentiment is anger. However, the rule of law has never been about slapping faces – a rather passionate reaction for a democratic institution which is required to be dispassionate. The Supreme Court’s decision to cancel the 122 telecom licenses suffers from several fundamental flaws which fly in the teeth of a constitutional democracy.