MISLEADING REFERENCE

Letter:
Your aforesaid report seems to be misleading. Allow me to explain why. “The High Court designates two as Senior Advocates”. Congratulations to them. So far - no problem. But your report goes on to state that “the full bench of the High Court took the decision following drastic action against two senior district judges in July earlier this year to clear and streamline the functioning of the lower courts in Sikkim”. This portion of your report is misleading.
Why?
Firstly, if you peruse your July papers you will see that then your news reports had stated that the concerned senior judges had taken voluntary retirement. There was no mention in your reports that the retirements were drastic action (implying punishment) by the High Court. Both can’t be true. So what is the official version?
Secondly, your report implies that the two persons were designated as Senior Advocates to clear and streamline the functioning of the lower courts in Sikkim. How so? Advocates, senior, junior, or someone in between, have no authority to clear and streamline the functioning of the courts. In other words, designating someone as Senior Advocate does not benefit the Court in any manner.
Recvd on email

We stand corrected. The reference was not required and unrelated to the development being reported on.
-Editor