I am appalled at the extent of indifference among our court judges in dealing with habeas corpus applications brought before them.

In the latest decision

by Shah Alam High Court judge, Justice Suriyadi Halim Omar, granted alleged Malaysian Mujahidin Group (KMM) member, Nasharuddin Nasir, access to legal aid.

Contrary to Kuala Lumpur High Court judge S Augustine Paul who has thrown out similar application by six Keadilan and reformasi activists, judge Suriyadi has ordered the authority to allow Nasharuddin's counsel to meet him on the following day at 2.30pm.

If I'm not mistaken, this is not the first time that 'collisions' of judgment have occurred. Are we facing an interpretation crisis here or are we seeing a serious erosion of impartiality among our learned judges?

If we take the above two judgments for instance, one must have possibly erred the law or was being partial. Whether it's the former or the latter, continued occurrence of such kinds of judgment retards the principle of justice at the expense of the credibility and integrity of our judiciary.

Since 1998, the independence of our judiciary has much been criticised following controversial court judgments of political and corporate cases by judge(s) alleged of being biased.

The time is ripe now for all elements of malpractises to 'RIP' (rest in peace) if we are committed enough to regain the glory of our judiciary.

Besides Chief Justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah, we certainly appreciate judge Suriyadi's attitude who has also said, "I'm not siding anybody. I am siding the law. I don't have to justify anybody," at the Shah Alam High Court.

It is unfortunate that judges like Muhammad Kamil Awang, Shaik Daud and a few more have since retired.