Four senior-most
judges of the Supreme Court came out together publicly and signalled a message:
‘Just like with justice, a tamasha must not only be done but must also seen to
be done'. And the tamasha they enacted was seen very well.
Justices J Chelameswar,
Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurien Joseph are those four honourable men, who
held a press meet in New Delhi on the 12th January, away from the
Supreme Court. Amidst newsmen and cameramen, they complained that “administration
of the Supreme Court is not in order” and that Chief Justice of India Dipak
Misra did nothing to remedy it, though the foursome had reminded him many times
on the issue. They released an undated joint letter they wrote to the CJI in
late 2017, giving more thrust to their present protest.
In their joint letter,
the four judges faulted the CJI for allocating sensitive and important cases in
the Supreme Court to benches of some particular junior judges for adjudication.
At the same time, they admitted that the chief justice had the power and
discretion to constitute benches, i.e., decide the number of judges to sit in a
court room, who those judges will be and the cases they will hear.
The four judges
contend that sensitive and important cases – meaning the ones which hold
the attention of politicians, the mainstream media and the general public
- should be adjudicated by senior judges, not junior ones, and so the
chief justice must accordingly form benches with the right mix of judges for those
cases and for other cases. This is their
demand, and subject of their complaint.
Remember, the four honourable
men were not discharging judicial functions when they openly faulted and
accused the chief justice. So they should be ready to hear the reactions of the
public. They said they had spoken to the chief justice but could not convince
him, and hence they brought up the issue in public and “placed it before the
nation” – that is, they want the public to hear and judge the four judges, so
the four of them could abide by people’s views, though disagreeing with the CJI.
They indicated they were out to help preserve
the institution of the Supreme Court and ensure ‘survival of democracy’.
Did the foursome elaborate
how and when they wished to gauge people’s views, who and how many among the
people will count for that purpose and so on? No, not a word on that. If all they meant by “placing it before the
nation” was calling the attention of the many political parties who oppose the chief
ruling party at the centre, that worked and all opposition leaders quickly expressed
support to the four honourable men. D.
Raja, an opposition leader and National Secretary of the Communist Party of
India, was welcomed by Justice Chelameswar into his residence on the day of the
press conference after it ended. The
judge should have surely convinced at least one eager member of the public that
his attack on the CJI was justified. Is
this not more proof of the judges’ tamasha?
Right now, 24 judges serve
in the Supreme Court, not including the chief justice. Aside from the
four protesting judges, none of the 20 other judges have so far publicly expressed
a similar opinion against the chief justice. That shows 20 judges do not
approve of the action of four other judges in meeting the press and faulting
the CJI. Do the four honourable men believe that a majority of 20:4 have a
value within the Supreme Court or before the public or in a democratic sense? Can a similar minority of judges (4 versus 20)
in India’s 24 High Courts call pressmen to air complaints against their chief
justices, relating to court administration?
The four judges must
be aware that the public – who comprise ‘the nation’ – will not study law and
its niceties to decide the matter brought before them. If people want to
decide, they will go by their sense of fairness and good outcome. They approved Narendra Modi of the BJP as
prime minister, overlooking expectations of other elders or stalwarts in that
party. The Congress party has elected the 47-year old Rahul Gandhi, not anyone
elder or more experienced, as its President. In a business corporation, key
decisions may be taken by younger persons. In cricket, if a new youngster bats
or bowls well, spectators applaud him and want to see more of him on the field.
If so, why would the common man want the
four senior judges, and not any junior judge, to decide all sensitive and important
cases in the Supreme Court? Will the
four honourable men want to think like a common man when they look to him to decide
their query?
If the four judges wish
to say junior judges wrongly decided several sensitive and important cases, they
should specify those cases and convince the public about what the right
decisions on them should be. It cuts no ice, especially with the general
public, if the four judges merely argue that sensitive and important cases
should not go to junior judges, no matter they are rightly decided. And they must go further - opening a
discussion on the correctness of judgements the four judges rendered as senior judges.
All these naturally follow when the four
wise men opened a Pandora’s box – and so more colourful tamasha is assured, isn’t
it?
The four judges alone
know what really prompted them to come out in the open against the Chief
Justice of India. But they will not be remembered in the cause of ‘survival of
democracy’. They have just been unruly - especially as judges who should observe
restraint and moderation in language and conduct. Do they like to be expressive, combative and
demonstrative? Well, then please resign and go public – that will be in order.
Someone is asking, “Can
four lieutenant generals of the Indian army hold a press conference against the
ways of the Chief of the Army Staff?” Before
you reply, consider a more important question: “If four army men really do it,
won’t we see messages of support pouring in from opposition leaders and many
intellectuals?”. You know the answer in
today’s India.
The four judges also know
that a court does not just hear one party on his case and decide, without
calling his opponent to have his say. 'Hear the other side' is a rule judges
follow. Even in the public sphere, in a television debate between two rival
candidates in an election both candidates get equal time and opportunity to give
their views and counter opponent’s claims. Do the four honourable men wish that
the Chief Justice of India should come before the people and defend himself on
the charge laid against him, so the public may hear both sides and decide? Do the four wise men realise that if such a
spectacle occurs - for which they set the stage - they will have brought our
judiciary to greater national and international ridicule and shame?
After bringing their
issue before the public, the four judges have gone back to work. A day after
their press meet, two judges spoke their mind. Kurien Joseph said, “There is no need for
outside intervention to solve the matter because it is a matter that occurred
within an institution. Necessary steps would be taken by the institution itself
to sort it out”, while Ranjan Gogoi stated, “There is no crisis”. If the four judges
still believe it was right coming before the public, they owe a duty to tell
the public if their issue had been solved to their satisfaction, by internal
discussions with the CJI, and if so how. They cannot keep the public guessing and
wondering. That is not the way of respecting democracy. Or, if by now they feel
it was a mistake holding a press meet on their issue and ‘placing it before the
nation’, they should tell their fellow-Indians, "Sorry, we erred in coming to the
public" – that would be graceful, and accepted in a democracy. There is
still a chance for the four honourable men to come clean and be straight before
the public, one way or the other. If
they don’t do one of these two things, they are fooling the nation by pretending
to ask for its opinion, while actually employing a pressure tactic against the
CJI. Such tamashas don’t help democracy.
Like every CJI before
him, Chief Justice Dipak Misra too will be assessed on his contribution in court
administration, more fully after he retires. He may be rated as outstanding, good, ordinary
or below average. That is a different issue. But he deserves credit for the maturity he has
displayed till now in not joining issue with the four judges in a public show,
like in a road rage, and not presenting a sorrier picture of the judiciary.
It might look the CJI
has buckled under a masterstroke played by the four honourable men, because he
is not saying anything openly in response to a tirade. On this issue, he will
also be watched on what he does. if the CJI plays the role of women in many Indian
households who don't talk back instantly, and also don't mind being snubbed by
irresponsible menfolk, but yet quietly work for the unity, dignity and onward journey
of the family, he will take a special honour in the hearts of lovers of
democracy.
* * * * *
Copyright © R. Veera Raghavan 2018
