It would be naïve to believe that
men who man the judicial wing of our country are strikingly different from the
rest of the nation. Obviously, this has no sociological or scientific basis. It
is trite to state that differences of opinion and intolerance thereof is on the
alarming increase in the polity and this is surely bound to reflect in all
branches of the government. It is therefore no big surprise that four senior
judges of the Apex court decide to reach out to the public and use the media
for it – print and electronic. This is not only in sharp contrast to the
hitherto used methods of judges speaking only through their verdicts or voicing
concern at seminars but is also strange in the context of choosing the media.
I have grown up as a lawyer hearing utterances of contempt and cynicism towards
the IV Estate (whether they deserve it or not is a different debate). How come
then that these Daniels who come to judgement suddenly find credibility in the
media and relate to them or expect of them to carry forward their soul
cleansing message? Paradigm shift? Convenience?
There has been an uproar on the action taken by the senior puisne judges of the
Apex court. While some see it as high-ranking judges calling the bluff others
see it as a coup de tat. One aspect of the matter that appears to have its
impact in the din and dust is the statement made by the senior four judges.
They state that the communication is to: highlight certain judicial orders
passed by this court which has adversely affected the overall functioning of
the justice delivery system and the independence of the High courts …”
While the entire debate seems to be about how first among the equals the CJI is
(is he different from the state High Court Chief Justices – an office occupied
by the authors of the communication) what is lost sight of is the allegation
that “judicial orders have adversely affected the justice delivery system”. How
come this serious allegation has lost precedence over the demand for the Chief
having to constitute benches and that senior judges are asking for what they
should be hearing? How come the central theme of transparency that runs through
the letter does not spell out a single incident that mentions the “judicial
orders” that have adversely effected the justice delivery system? Does the soul
cleansing stop at part exposure and does it not require the Learned Daniel who
come to judgement to spell out to the nation what those “judicial orders” are.
The foursome has indeed received kudos from certain respectable sections of our
society, including one who has been chastised by the Chief Justice. There is a
growing tendency I believe which points out to a collective eagerness to
applaud the rebel. Often the context and the cause are forgotten. It is nice to
see someone rebel against the system. In the context of the iron fisted
vertical like the Indian Judicial system, even more so. Here at the cost of
meandering I must register a feeble voice of protest at the manner in which
many (if not most) judges have come to attorn the cloak of un approachable
respectability and thereby integrity. Since the senior judges of the apex court
speak in unison about judicial orders affecting the justice delivery system,
they owe the nation some detailing of this alarming allegation. They also need
to take a sub aerial view at how judges deal with maters, lawyers and how on an
every day basis lawyers at different courts are made to feel that their cases
depend upon the whim of their Lordships.
In so far as judicial behaviour is concerned the foursome may well have touched
a raw nerve. Three decades and more after being at the Bar I recently suffered
a summary rejection by a judge of the civil court who refused to take up a
brief specifically allotted to him. I did not go public about it. Many
colleagues at the Bar would recall how their requests are not just turned off
or rejected but done with disdain. We take this all and more with the wisdom
that that is how a system works when under pressure. The citizen does not go to
the media about it. Much less after taking the stance that media cannot be
relied upon!!
The tendency to applaud the rebel is a fine action by the polity, specially
when heterodoxy is scorned at. However, being a rebel in it itself does not
make the rebellious action correct. Assuming in this incident that the cause
was right, the men surely right, I would still believe that the method was
suspect and leaves a lot more questions than offers answers.
The nation has for long been under the assumption that all is fine and perfect
with the Indian judicial system. It needed halloed insiders to scream about the
Emperor’s New Clothes. The nation may well be shaken. Intriguingly the Bar at
the Supreme Court has said a few things. Even the media has not really bothered
to garner impressions from across the legal pundits and citizens across the
country. In the meanwhile one of the judges has been placed on par with Jus. HR
Khanna. Compliments. However, I am certain that the recipient would feel a tad
embarrassed for the compare. Meanwhile there is a huge in-house group that
reacts typically with shock and scorn.
However while rebel is fine, is this a case of rebel without cause!!
L. Ravichander.