12 January 2018 might be recorded as a dark day for the Indian judiciary. The way four senior judges of the Supreme Court (SC) walked out of their court rooms and went public with their grievances by holding a press conference Friday last has shocked this nation. To the best of our knowledge and as can be read in the letter these four gentlemen addressed to the Chief Justice of India, there was nothing that warranted such a drastic action which could be termed outright revolt – a non acceptable port of call for the judiciary, which should limit its functions on established lines and shun whimsical behaviour.
Watching the live telecast of this ‘rebellion’ was very interesting and brought to mind many questions. For instance, had a similar revolt taken place in one of the numerous high courts, how would these collegium judges have dealt with it? As far as one completely unaware of the intricate judicial goings on can guess, those four high court judges would have been banished from the face of the civilized world in an instant. They would all have, without exception, been transferred to godforsaken locations. Possibly none would have an opportunity to sit on any Bench ever again. It would have become impossible to even locate their postal addresses. Such would have been their plight that possibly no other serving judge would have wanted to be seen talking to them in public. One may, while saying this, keep in mind that, strictly speaking, the high courts are not really subordinate judiciary vis a vis the Supreme Court. The primary difference, most likely, is that the SC is an appellate authority.
But then, who dares raise a finger at these four ‘senior’ judges.
The other important point that a common citizen understands is that all SC judges are supposed to be equals. The major issue that these four judges prominently raised is a charge that important cases are being assigned to ‘junior’ judges and not to them. Although we are not educated in legalese, as common citizens of this nation we understand that even the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is not, repeat not, first among equals. However, the CJI has an exclusive power as the master of the roster. He is authorised, by many past judgements, to decide which judge or multiple of judges will hear which matter. That, obviously, is his prerogative. This same practice is followed in high courts, too. In the same breath, it can be said that the judge seemingly leading this rebellion, Justice J Chelameswar, is on the verge of retirement, while Justice Gogoi might become the next CJI. In such a situation, it should be incumbent on the aged judges to let the younger ones handle sensitive cases so that they can be well prepared, in their careers, for the future.
In the letter containing the allegations of these judges, there is hint also that the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra is being unfair in the apportioning of cases. If the very premise of senior and junior judges does not exist, this particular allegation falls flat. Here, one may quote the harsh words of retired Judge RS Sodhi who said: “Issues do not matter but it is their complaint on administration that matters. They are only four, but there are 23 others. These four got together and showed the chief justice in poor light. It is immature and childish behaviour. I think all four judges should be impeached.”
On the other hand, senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan told the media that he has never seen such “blatant abuse of power” as during CJI Dipak Misra’s tenure. He also added that if “he (Misra) has any self respect, he should resign”. Bhushan’s statement sounds not only illogical but highly biased. If four judges out of a total of the current 25 hold an opinion and the CJI is guided by that opinion, then the system cannot function. Juxtapose this scenario with the Parliament. Each time a miniscule number of Opposition members demand resignation of the Prime Minister and he is asked to comply, the nation would go for a toss.
Justice Chelameswar and the other three judges would have done a great service to the nation if they had chosen to raise, in a proper way, issues of malfunctioning of the judiciary, inordinate delays in pronouncing judgements, corruption, inefficiency and a whole plethora of ailments plaguing the Indian judicial system. There is no doubt that the judiciary is passing through a difficult time. Perceptions are strong that it has become an exclusive club that safeguards only the interests of a select few such as corporate bigwigs, the government’s anti-people policies, and the high and mighty in many other forms. They may not have been able to do so because, in earlier years, they too must have been CJs in High Courts and would have happily played along with the grotesque system. It is sad that the four judges did not see these critical issues that are affecting the credibility of the judiciary and also the lives of the common man of this country. Had they raised these issues instead, they would have been heroes in the eyes of every Indian today.
To his credit, it can be said that CJI Dipak Misra has passed a few out-of-the-box judgements: His stand on the Aadhaar issue till date, reversing his own order on the playing of the national anthem before movie shows, and a relook at Section 377 concerning gay citizens, for instance. These most certainly would have disturbed the conservative mindset of this country, the mindset that opposes change. Admittedly, we are not equipped to comment on the judiciary. However, as common citizens wanting good of this country, the feeling is that the action of the four judges is highly unbecoming of the high pedestal they occupy. This outburst has created dismay and doubts about the abilities of some of them slated to lead the highest court of the land in the near future. Also, what added to such dismay was the surfacing of a politician in the form of D Raja at Chelameswar’s house, whereas we noticed how the CJI bluntly refused to meet, or has shut the door tight on even an emissary of the Prime Minister. That speaks of Misra’s courage of conviction.
