STRAW MAN FALLACY, INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY
STRAW
MAN FALLACY, INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY AND SOPHISTRY IN COURTS AND DEBATES
Often,
we see the misleading arguments by Senior Counsels and also read the judgements
passed by the so called Hon’ble Judges where the main cause is bypassed and
undeserving person were benefitted by such intellectual dishonesty. However
when such Judges like Justice Shukla, Nirmal Yadav , Shameet Mukharjee etc are
arrested , prosecuted and charge sheeted
by the CBI then we can make out the
actual reason in passing such orders.
This
article will help you to find out the intellectual dishonesty of Judges,
Advocates and opponents.
The definition of SOPHISTRY is “ the use of clever but false arguments,
especially with the intention of deceiving.”
‘Intellectually
dishonest’ people are those who are used to imposing their
beliefs on others, make the facts suit their opinion, avoid taking new
information or opinions of others as they are closed-minded and glued to
reaching their intended conclusions. They often use invalid or otherwise faulty
reasoning in the construction of arguments in order to prove their point which
is far from the main point of question.
Such act of intellectually dishonest
people can be described as a ‘Fallacy’.
Such fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by
deception. However, there are times, where fallacies may be committed
unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance.
The practice of using clever arguments
which sound convincing but are false in actuality with a deliberate intent to
trick and make his point is called ‘Sophistry’.
A person is called Sophist when he reasons with clever but fallacious and
deceptive arguments.
When there is an impression of refuting
an argument and the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed
at all or properly refuted, then such argument can be called as an informal
fallacy, also known as ‘Straw Man
Fallacy’. The one
engaging in such kind of fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.
The
typical straw man argument creates an illusion of having completely refuted the
proposition of the opponent by covert replacement of it with an entirely
different proposition (i.e. raise a straw man), then subsequently refute the
said false argument (knock down the straw man); leaving the main proposition of
the opponent aside and untouched. Such usage of straw man arguments dates long
back in history majorly in courts, debates, politics, media, more particularly
regarding highly emotional subjects.
The Fallacies
of Relevance is generally represented by ‘missing of the point’ wherein the
argument is presented, which sounds as such addressing the issue, but in fact,
it fails to address the issue in question. They are used majorly by the advocates,
speaker or writer, intentionally, in academic debate, a conversation among
friends, political discourse, advertising, or for comic purposes. The arguer
may use fallacious reasoning to try to persuade the listener or reader, by
means other than offering relevant evidence.
PRESENCE OF FALLACY CAN BE OBSERVED WHEN –
1.
They
ignore or avoid the question by diverting the argument to unrelated issues;
2.
Quote
opponent's words - out of context i.e. they misrepresent the opponent's
intentions;
3.
Identify
a false cause and effect;
4.
Give
vague answers and cause deceptive notions;
5.
Have
double standards;
6.
Make
jumps in logic;
7.
Asserting
that everyone agrees;
8.
Create
a false dilemma, in which the situation is either oversimplified or grossly
exaggerated;
9.
Selectively
using facts i.e. using only those portion which is beneficial to them;
10.
Making
false or misleading comparisons;
11.
Assume
the conclusion of an argument, a kind of circular reasoning;
12.
They
do not value and are not open to others opinions and dismiss it without proper
or logical reasoning.
GENERAL ILLUSTRATIONS:
The
straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Example
1:
In JNU Sedition case, the Police registered a
case of sedition against Umar Khalid and others for slogans against Indian Army
and in support of Pakistan Army. The intellectually dishonest people such as
Adv. Fali Nariman, Justice (Retired) Deepak Gupta connected this issue with
Right to Protest, attack on Freedom of Speech, etc.
The main issue regarding the serious offence
of supporting Pakistan Army was not commented nor allowed to be debated by such
anti national elements.
Later it came to light that the Pakistani
agencies are funding such people to give statement in favour of anti-national
elements. The interview of former RAW Officer viz. N K Sood is available on YouTube.
Deepika Padukone got Rs 5 crore to
participate in anti-CAA protest at JNU, claims former RAW officer According to
RAW Officer N K Sood, Deepika Padukone reportedly took Rs. 5 crores from a
person with Pakistani ties to attend an anti-CAA protest
https://www.sentinelassam.com/national-news/deepika-padukone-got-rs-5-crore-to-participate-in-anti-caa-protest-at-jnu-claims-former-raw-officer-491879
Example
2:
Once an elected President was asked by the
journalist, whether he used campaign funds for his personal use at the time of
campaigning. He used the straw man tactic and spoke about a dog, the gift, that
he received from one of his supporters. He elaborated and described more about
the dog and how his daughter loved it and would keep it with her all the time
and the love of kids for dog and that regardless of what others say, they are
going to keep it.
This in fact, was a straw man response, where
he was successful at distracting people from the question of funds and its
misappropriation and focused on the small dog that his family and daughter
loved. This way his critics too never criticized the dog as a gift nor did they
suggest that they return it.
STRAW MAN FALLACIES COMMITTED BY THE INDIAN
JUDICIARY:
Apart
from the general incidents of debates, advertisements, media, there have been
couple of instances where the Indian Judiciary, too, have committed such straw
man fallacies and have adopted recourse of intellectual dishonesty while
passing the judgements.
CASE
1:
One such instance can be seen in the case of Vaidya Kuldip Raj Kohil v/s. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. 2002. In the said case, the Respondent No. 2 had
challenged the appointment of the Petitioner and alleged that he did not possess the required
qualification. He challenged the same before the concerned Tribunals and
High Court which were dismissed summarily. Even though such certification was for the M. P. S. C. to
decide, the Respondent No. 2 took recourse to Criminal Court and the Ld.
Magistrate issued process that too by diverting and ignoring to give reason
behind differing from the said Police Report, which disclosed that there
was no offence or forgery or cheating committed.
The Bombay High Court observed that –
8. ……… Thereafter to cause harassment to
the Petitioners recourse was taken to Criminal Court. The Court lend necessary
assistance to the Complainant to abuse the process of law by passing a vague
order consciously. …… The learned
Magistrate has passed an order running in seven pages which does not speak of a
single sentence as to how and what offence is committed. I am convinced
that the learned Magistrate also found that no offence is disclosed, even
thereafter going out of way he wanted to help the complainant. The process of
law was misused not only by the complainant but also by the learned Magistrate.
It is a clear case of misuse of judicial powers by the Court.
As the entire order of learned Magistrate does not even remotely
indicate how he came to the conclusion that offence is disclosed, and that he
did not focus on the fact in question but stated that the matter can be decided
only after a trial. This is a sheer example of the Magistrate of being
intellectually dishonest and use the path of Straw man fallacy, whereby he
avoided the issue in question and passed orders by misusing his judicial
powers.
The said order passed by the Magistrate
suffers not only from non-application of mind but also shows clearly that it is
passed for some extraneous considerations. In the circumstances, the Bombay High Court
rectified such fallacy by allowing the petition and quashing and setting aside
the Order passed by the Magistrate, and also saddled the said Respondent with
costs and directed him to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Petitioner for filing a false
and frivolous case in order to take revenge causing mental agony and torture to
the petitioner.
CASE
2:
Another instance of such straw man fallacy
can be observed in the recent case of Arnab
Goswami v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2020. Herein, a Petition
before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was instituted under Article 226 of the
Constitution and Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. While dealing with the petition u/s. 482
for quashing of the FIR, the High Court did not consider whether prima facie the
ingredients of the offence have been made out in the FIR. Instead, it avoided
to look into the contentions of the FIR and mentioned that the said submission
deserves no consideration at this stage when the investigation is in progress
and the alleged suicide note recovered by the Investigating Officer mentions
the name of the petitioner. Thereby it held that no case is made out for
release of the applicant under extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction and thus
rejected the said Interim Application.
This is yet another classic example of Straw
man Fallacy, where the Court avoided to look into the main proposition of
evaluating the contentions of the FIR but jumped to a general conclusion that
the High Court needs to use its arbitrary power sparingly and that in order to
seek bail, the Court cannot exercise its arbitrary power and that the applicant
is available with an alternate remedy for the same.
The Apex Court, however, formed the opinion
that, the Courts cannot abandon its citizens who is able to establish prima
facie that the instrumentality of the State is being weaponized for using the
force of criminal law, and rectified the error committed by the High Court by
observed that –
The High Court not only abdicated its
constitutional duty and function as a protector of liberty but also failed to
discharge its adjudicatory function of evaluating the FIR, prima facie, at the
interim stage in petition for quashing the FIR and of declining the interim
bail. If the High Court were to have carried out this exercise, it would have
been apparent that the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide under
section 306 of IPC have not prima facie been established and that it could have
been cognizant of the specific ground that was raised by the appellant that he
was being made a target as a part of a series of occurrences taking place since
April 2020.
The
Apex Court, thus held that –
The
High Court did have the power to protect the citizen by an interim order in a
petition invoking Article 226. Where
the High Court has failed to do so, this Court would be abdicating its role and
functions as a constitutional court if it refuses to interfere, despite the
parameters for such interference being met.
9. We are of the considered view that the
High Court was in error in rejecting the applications for the grant of interim
bail. We accordingly order and direct that Arnab
Manoranjan Goswami, Feroz Mohammad Shaikh and Neetish Sarda shall be released
on interim bail, subject to each of them executing a personal bond in the
amount of Rs 50,000 to be executed before the Jail Superintendent. They are,
however, directed to cooperate in the investigation and shall not make any
attempt to interfere with the ongoing investigation or with the witnesses.
CASE
3:
In the case of Nidhi Kaim & Anr. v/s. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2017),
the MBBS students had challenged the order of cancellation of their admission
in the said course. It had come to the notice during the trial that the
admission was not only based on errors and tampering of the examination process
but also that they took recourse to even use help and assistance in giving
exams and securing their admission in the college. The question in the present
case is whether the said students should be allowed to retain their knowledge
and not cancel their admission as well as their degree, considering the benefit
of society at large. To support the contention and save the appellants their
degree, Adv. Fali Nariman pleaded by suggesting that, the Supreme Court must be
trusted and that it can even ignore statutory law, in the overriding interest
of doing justice under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The
Chief Justice J. S. Khehar, on the suggestion of Adv. Nariman, emphasised –
The
argument advanced by Mr. Nariman, that this Court can pass order against
statute is indeed heartening and reassuring. But if such preposition is accepted then, Mr. Nariman, and a
number of other outstanding legal practitioners like him, undeniably have the brilliance to mould the best
of minds. And thereby, to persuade a
Court, to accept their sense of reasoning, so as to override statutory law
and/or a declared pronouncement of law. It is this, which every Court, should consciously keep out of its reach.
At the cost of repetition, we would reiterate, that such a situation, as is
contemplated by Mr. Nariman, does not seem to be possible.”
The
Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that –
The Supreme Court cannot pass any order in
disregard to statutory provisions and against the law laid down by Higher
Benches of the Supreme Court. The proposition that it can do justice as it
perceives, even when contrary to the statute, should never be entertained, as a
rule, by any Court/Judge, however high or noble.
Hence, the Court cannot accept the claim of a
person, who already has committed an offence and then sought remedy under
Article 142 of the Constitution, under the pretext and suggestion of societal
gains. Truthful conduct, must always remain the hallmark of the rule of law. No
matter the gains, or the losses. The jurisdiction exercisable by this Court
under Article 142, cannot ever be invoked, to salvage, and legitimize acts
of fraudulent character. Fraud, cannot be allowed to thrive under the garb of
public good. Therefore, in such position, there appears no possibility of
extending of any benefit under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The
Courts, across the spectrum – the District Judiciary, the High Courts and the
Supreme Court – equally must ensure the proper enforcement of law and also make
sure that it does not become a weapon for targeted harassment of citizens. It
is the duty of the Court to safeguard the public interest and ensure that the
due enforcement of criminal law is not obstructed and fair investigation of
crime is an aid to it. Liberty is not a gift to selected people. It is
important to note that, though such straw man fallacies are intentionally used
in debates, advertisements and other areas, it should never become a part of
the Judiciary or its decision making, as such Straw man Fallacy tactics will
lead to breach of trust and will raise serious question of intellectual
integrity of such authorities. National character cannot be sacrificed for
benefits – individual or societal. If, we desire to build a nation, on the
touchstone of ethics and character, and if our determined goal is to build a
nation where only the rule of law prevails and that truthful conduct is the
backbone for the success of administration of the law in the country.
Very well pointed
ReplyDelete