Kahlil Gibran said, “All work is empty save when there is love.” The argument has also an antithesis. Too much love is a spoiler. Press Council of India chief Justice Markandey Katju suffers from this. He has made a habit out of his profession of decades. Now, he judges. And that’s become his favourite pastime. Being out of the courtroom has only worked to his advantage. His erstwhile I-have-the-judgment-now-bring-me-the-case lacuna is gone. The whole world is his courtroom now.

In his latest write-up in The Indian Express titled ‘The 90%’ he has said nothing new, but has put all his earlier ‘judgments’ in a proper court order style. Some of his ‘judgments’ are that 90% Indians are fools; cricket is opium; media hype around Dev Anand’s death (how will the poor soul ever rest in peace?) was unnecessary; Jan Lokpal bill is recreating Frankenstein’s monster; and those with Anna Hazare at Jantar Mantar displayed a dangerous mob mentality.

While calling 90% Indians fools, justice Katju quotes from Faiz, Manusmriti and from two plays of Shakespeare (Macbeth and Julius Caesar) in the same write-up — to ostensibly make it clear that he belongs to the 10%. That much established, he goes on with his gavel, hitting the rural masses (the fools, I guess), movie goers, cricket fans and Anna Hazare supporters. A subtle pattern is visible here. These are all crowds. And being a ten percenter, perhaps Katju doesn’t like crowds. Had his been arguments, a counter or analysis was possible. But judgments being judgments allow no such scope.

But why does he need to speak his mind, satyam apriyam, the unpleasant truth? He begins with an answer. Bol ki lab azad hai tere/Bol zubaan ab tak teri hai. He quotes Faiz and adds that he has this defect of speaking out. He is right and has the right to do so is what he means but doesn’t say. But truth is subjective and what if the 90% have an opinion of their own on the 10%? Perhaps, he won’t bother. No one but he judges.

The senile former judge has a few unpleasant truths to know for himself. One he doesn’t know the abc of conducting himself in public. Two he who doesn’t know restraint cannot speak his mind. And if he has the defect, as he has argued, he should be consulting psychologists rather than the newspapers for such defects. Three, he has to understand that he has lost the ability to differentiate an idea from idiosyncrasy and should not run out “eureka” every time he steps on one in the bathroom.