The conventional image of a communist is that of a taciturn person. Mr Biman Bose of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) belies this typical image. He loves to talk and to shoot his mouth off. This has got him into trouble but it has never landed him in prison. Now this has happened as well. The Calcutta high court ruled on Thursday that Mr Bose will have to serve simple imprisonment for three days and pay a fine of Rs 10,000 because he heaped ridicule on Mr Amitava Lala. As a serving judge of the high court, Mr Lala passed a verdict in September 2003 banning rallies and processions on the streets of Calcutta since they inconvenienced the common people. Mr Bose had mocked that judgment and poured scorn on Mr Lala. It is to be welcomed that the high court has come down on Mr Bose for his shameless show of disrespect for a member of the judiciary. It is nobody?s case that the judiciary and its actions are beyond criticism and reproach. But a distinction has to be maintained between the institution called the judiciary and individual judges. Moreover, even when individual judgments are made the targets of criticism, the motives of a judge cannot be brought into question. Mr Bose scoffed at all these conditions, which are part of a civilized and democratic society.

Even after the condemnation of the high court, Mr Bose is unrepentant. He claimed, after the court order, that his remarks on Mr Lala were meant to ?reflect the popular mood?. The arrogance of this claim is breathtaking. Mr Bose has assumed that he, and he alone, can feel the pulse of the popular mood. This arrogance grows from the fact that Mr Bose is a leader of the CPI(M), which is a mass-based party. It is no point reminding Mr Bose that despite the long stint of left rule, in every election, more than 35 per cent of the people of West Bengal vote against the left parties. In Calcutta, the percentage is probably higher. These anti-left voters also form the populace and their views and feelings also reflect the popular mood. Many of these people do not accept that Mr Bose has a monopoly on the understanding of the popular mood. Mr Bose, because he is a politician functioning within a democratic polity, must recognize the dangers involved in the pitting of the popular mood against a judge of the high court. This, carried to its logical and extreme conclusion, can only lead to the erosion of the authority of the judiciary. It is not advisable to ridicule the judiciary every time it passes a verdict that goes against Mr Bose?s personal and political interests.

The CPI(M) cannot escape some of the responsibility for Mr Bose?s verbal antics. The CPI(M) is a party known for its discipline and it cannot be impossible for the party leadership to tell Mr Bose where his limits lie. Since the party has failed to do this, it is not unreasonable to assume that Mr Bose enjoys the party?s indulgence. The party may not be liable, but it is certainly responsible.