Four Supreme Court Judges Ask the Nation to Judge Them

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 12^th 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