Issuing a gag order to silence an individual before a trial has even commenced is philosophically inconsistent and unjustifiable: Shameem

Former Prosecutor General Hussain Shameem has stated that, from a philosophical standpoint, issuing a gag order to silence an individual before a trial has even commenced is fundamentally illogical.

Speaking during a program on RaajjeTV, Shameem made these remarks in reference to a court order prohibiting public discussion regarding a specific case.

Shameem stated that since the order was issued by a court, he believes it must be respected and complied with accordingly. He further noted that the order will be followed as long as the High Court does not declare it invalid. However, Shameem pointed out that the broad scope of the order and the legal issues surrounding it remain matters that can be debated within the framework of freedom of expression.

Questioning the Prosecutor General’s Office's decision to seek such an order, Shameem stated that it was something he had never imagined. He emphasized that the responsibility of the PG Office is not to ensure a specific person is convicted or released, but rather that its true objective is to uphold justice. Shameem further noted that neither the conviction of the guilty nor the acquittal of the innocent should be viewed as a loss for the prosecutor.

Why did the PG Office seek such an order? I honestly do not know; it is something we never even imagined. The PG Office’s mandate is not necessarily to convict or release a specific individual, but to ensure that justice is served. Justice is achieved by prosecuting those who commit crimes and exonerating those who do not. From a broader perspective, a prosecutor suffers no professional loss if a case is not proven; it simply means an innocent person has been cleared. If a case is proven, it means a criminal has been held accountable. Therefore, the PG Office should have no personal stake or vested interest in the outcome in that manner.

Former Prosecutor General Hussain Shameem

Reflecting on the origins of judicial power, Shameem noted that the concept of "contempt of court" is a legacy of the former monarchical system. He explained that in the past, judges acted as enforcers of the King's authority; consequently, any act of contempt against the court was viewed as an affront to the Sovereign himself. However, Shameem emphasized that in a democratic system, a judge is a public servant dedicated to serving the people.

Citing a statement by a Justice of the Supreme Court of India, Shameem asserted that a gag order should not be issued unless it is absolutely necessary to prevent extreme interference with a judge's ability to perform their duties. Shameem further noted that since the determination of whether a trial is being obstructed can only be made once proceedings have commenced, issuing such an order prior to the start of a trial is fundamentally illogical within the legal framework.