Constitutional offices make exacting demands on those who hold them. As W.H. Auden put it in another context, they must learn to have the satisfaction of “forgetting themselves in [the] function”. The aftermath of the tragedy in Nandigram continues to prove how difficult the challenge can be. The latest to fail this test is Mr Hashim Abdul Halim, the speaker of the West Bengal assembly. An editorial in The Telegraph had earlier questioned the constitutional propriety of the statement by West Bengal’s governor, Mr Gopalkrishna Gandhi, on the events in Nandigram. It had also argued against the Calcutta high court’s suo motu order for a probe into them by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The events in Nandigram were only a sub-text. This newspaper is of the view that Mr Gandhi’s action has harmed his office. It also thinks that a pronouncement given suo motu strikes at the root of judicial impartiality and fairness. Mr Halim too holds an office that is expected to restrain his actions as an individual or as a political leader. His public criticism of the governor is not just in bad taste; it is totally unsuitable for his office. As the speaker of the legislature, he cannot have a personal stand on issues relating to either the government or the opposition. His office takes away his political identity and makes him the symbol of an institution.

Mr Biman Bose’s fulminations against the court’s order, however, show him up as the usual suspect. He has an unedifying record of shooting off his mouth. One does not expect of a political leader the kind of restraint that a holder of a constitutional office has to submit to. Yet, it is necessary that even politicians learn to use some restraint in debating the functions of the judiciary. Mr Bose is no ordinary leader; he is the chairman of the ruling Left Front and secretary of the state unit of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). What he says or does has much more than a moral effect. It becomes a call to his comrades. A government or a ruling party has legal options to question a particular order of the court. But to publicly make insinuations against the judiciary is worse than an error; it is an attack on an important arm of a democracy. An event may rock the government of the day or the party in power. But the sanctity of constitutional institutions must be protected like that of an intellectual property.