Matters of heart, and court
by Justice S.D. Anand
The discharge of office duties can, apart from being professionally satisfying, provide a hilarious facet too. In spite of my handicap of not being able to read and write Urdu, I always had fondness for the language because of my father having been an avid lover of that language and also the Persian language.
I used to “satiate” my thirst for Urdu by going through the Hindi translations of Urdu literature which are available in the market. Once I came across a particular couplet which underlined that delay in the offering of a response to a romantic proposal could be tortuous to the proposing partner who would like to have a response, preferably in the affirmative, but would not mind a negative reaction too.
Human mind, by the very nature of things, displays ingenuity at times. Charged with the responsibility of monitoring the disposal of old cases, I found that quite a large number of the category were those which involved a controversy about emotional quotient and neither party was inclined for a delay. However, the vicissitudes of the law being what those are, things did get delayed by years.
The results of about a year-long monitoring were satisfying and a presentation was to be made to the boss (of the time). The Urdu couplet aforementioned was ready in my mind for being used at an appropriate moment which, obviously, had to be provided by the Urdu-loving boss.
An epitome of extreme kindness, sophistication and immaculate etiquettes that he was, any uninvited quotation could be chaotic and, in that eventuality, any damage-control exercise was inconceivable. Nevertheless, the desire was to have an inviting opportunity to punctuate the presentation with the couplet.
The disposal figures were indeed flattering qua the state under my supervision. The sense of relief and achievement was writ large on the face of the addressed authority.
The relevant dignitary, in a thoughtful tone, called upon me to say which exactly the litigant public expected from the judicial dispensation. God-sent opportunity was before me. Time to vomit the couplet, any further retention of which could cause emotional “indigestion”.
I informed, in a manner suggesting the immediate occurring of thought, that the litigant public would not mind a decision either way but that it must come about at the earliest:
“maine ye kab kaha ki mere haq mein ho jawab, lekin khamosh kyon hai koi faisla to dey”
(When did I insist upon a verdict favourable to me? I only want you to break your silence and decide either way).
The follow-up of the punctuated presentation is a privileged communication.
Link Here :