Sir — As if the stress of working from home were not enough, Deutsche Bank has proposed a ‘privilege tax’ for employees who can earn a living without being physically present in office. Why, one must ask, do employees have to bear the burden of taxation? Are not the companies saving establishment costs with people working from home? Moreover, at a time when working from home can mean the difference between life and death for not just oneself but also others, how can it be called a ‘privilege’? Work from home involves longer hours; an added tax will break the employees’ morale.

Ravi Marik,
Pune

Rise above

Sir — In a democratic country, no institution, no public office and no person can be above scrutiny, or even criticism. People have the right to express displeasure even if it is against the Supreme Court. This cannot be tantamount to contempt of court. The attorney-general, K.K. Venugopal, has initiated contempt of court proceedings against the stand-up comedian, Kunal Kamra, for his criticism of the Supreme Court in the promptness shown in granting bail to the Republic TV journalist, Arnab Goswami (“AG’s consent against Kamra”, Nov 13). This is ironical when one considers what the judge, D.Y. Chandrachud, said while granting bail to Goswami: “If we as a constitutional court do not lay down law and protect personal liberty, then who will?” Does this tenet then hold true only for a handful of individuals? One hopes that the Supreme Court will in its astuteness reject the petition against Kamra. If it does not, it will only be giving more ground to the allegations of bias that are being levelled against it.

More important, steps must be taken to reconsider the matter of contempt of court. The concept is centuries out of time. In England, it is a common law principle that seeks to protect the judicial power of the monarch, initially exercised by the monarch, and later by a panel of judges who acted in his or her name. Violation of the judges’ orders was considered an affront to the monarch. Over time, any kind of disobedience to judges, or obstruction to the implementation of their directives, or comments and actions that showed disrespect towards them came to be punishable. Making allegations against the judiciary or individual judges, attributing motives to judgments and judicial functioning and any scurrilous attack on the conduct of judges are normally considered matters that scandalize the judiciary. The rationale for this provision is that courts must be protected from tendentious attacks that lower its authority, defame its public image and make the people lose faith in its impartiality.

But, in effect, this law has been turned into a weapon to silence doubts against the judiciary. This is an unhealthy practice. Airing and addressing of grievances is how a democracy functions. Suppressing discontent will only make matters worse.

Pradipta Sen,
Calcutta

Sir — The Supreme Court should set a precedent by refusing to entertain contempt of court proceedings against Kunal Kamra. This will be the best response to Kamra’s allegations against the top court of the country. A recent chain of events has led many to question the motivations behind some of the apex court’s judgments. Contempt of court is meant to keep the judiciary and its judgments above doubt. But in present times it has served quite the opposite function. The judges must ask themselves whether punishing Kamra will eradicate the seeds of doubt in the minds of people or only help them gain root.

J. Akshobhya,
Hyderabad

Right stand

The rescued Russell’s viper File picture

Sir — It was encouraging to learn that villagers in Matiagacha stood guard around a 5 feet-long Russell’s viper for hours to protect it from people who wanted to kill it (“Villagers save Russell’s viper”, Nov 14). Although it is a crime, killing snakes is, unfortunately, common in our country. Mostly, people kill snakes out of fear. Regular awareness programmes about snakes by the forest department could decrease the number of such incidents.

Sourish Misra,
Calcutta