The New Court of the Democratic Republic of Great Void has decided to admit for hearing a petition challenging the imposition of Urgency and the promulgation of the Interim Constitution Order by Big Bro.A highly placed official told Daily Times that the move by the lordships makes it very clear that the NC is as independent as the Old Court of DRGV and Opposition propaganda to the contrary is slanderous and meant to hurt the national interest of DRGV.
Jurists are, however, in a bit of quandary, although independent sources say this is a normal state of affairs with people of the law. Even so, most jurists Daily Times spoke to said that they could not understand how the NC could adjudicate a matter which, if the verdict were to go against the ICO, would also amount to a judgement against the NC itself.
“The NC is a product of the ICO. If it were to adjudicate against the ICO, it would also be judging against itself,” said one jurist.
However, the Chief Legal Officer of DRGV, who has a reputation for remaining unruffled in the face of all adversity, legal, political or linguistic, tut-tutted this logic and said that “these Houyhnhnms know not what they say”.
When asked to explain what he meant by this, the CLO, face at an upward angle, said that the NC was fully qualified to take up this issue and while it was up to the lordships to decide which way the issue would rest in its conclusion, the matter being sub judice, it would make no difference even if the lordships were to give a verdict against the ICO.
“Most people think that if the lordships were to decide against the ICO, that would mean the NC’s own composition would be called into question. This is superficial reasoning. If we were to accept that a court before which a petition was filed was not the proper legal forum to decide the matter, its very existence having been questioned by its own decision, then the petition filed before such a court would also become infructuous; by that logic, any decision on a writ by such a court would also have no legal significance. That being so, such a court would have been deemed not to have given such a decision and we would be back to the court in its full glory.”
When the CLO was told by Daily Times that his logic was immaculate, he smiled and said sotto voce: “Imagine what I’ll do to the lawyer who has filed the writ; that wretch can’t even argue his way out of a paper-bag”.
“Plus,” said the CLO, “the precedent says a court’s a court by virtue of its being so and not because of any oath or other external factors”.
We say, “Indeed, sir!”