Logo

Logo

Change in the air?

The Supreme Court Collegium stood effectively shattered when the quartet ~ Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and…

Change in the air?

four judges of Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Collegium stood effectively shattered when the quartet ~ Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph ~ held a first-ever press conference on 12 January against the Chief Justice of India and dramatically declared democracy to be in danger. To make the impact of their dire warning more chillingly eloquent, they went on to claim that they were only prompted by the most lofty intentions of safeguarding the independence, integrity and strength of the core pillar of democracy, seen to be seriously eroded by grave infirmities and irregularities in administration and selective assignation of important cases with far-reaching consequences to Benches “of preference”, without any rational basis.

They also wanted to absolve themselves of the opprobrium that may be cast by some wise men twenty years down the road of having sold their souls and let the nation down. They wanted the nation, therefore, to decide whether the CJI ought to be impeached. Obviously, they could not have expected that to happen within the existing governance framework. Yet they went right ahead and did what they felt compelled to do, in the given circumstances. Was it a case of mere heightened frustration or an augury of welcome change?

The jury on that will remain out for a while. However, since that eventful day, expectedly, there has been unending coverage and multi-layered commentary on what has been billed as the beginning of the biggest crisis that the Judiciary has ever faced, with the Supreme Court itself being on trial in the people’s court. Politicians of all shades, always in the sniff-out mode for potentially embarrassing controversies, have been nimble in diving in, drawing dark rings around the unprecedented development.

Advertisement

The Government unsurprisingly has, artfully and conveniently, tip-toed aside for the moment and dumped the expose into the capacious box of “internal-matters-of-the-Supreme Court”. As things unravel, it appears it is back to business though perhaps not quite business as usual.

K K Venugopal, the veteran Attorney-General, was obviously somewhat off the mark when he expressed confidence that the “entire issue” would be resolved in a day, pinning hopes on the statesmanship, experience and knowledge of the Judges. That sounded more like fantasy-fiction and he has since had to admit to his misplaced optimism. Though many in the legal fraternity, including the Bar Council and the Bar Association equally abhorred the idea of dirty linen being laundered in public ~ as it was as much a reflection on them ~ and were keen for an all-is-well public hug, there is no way the can of opened worms will be hastily or very easily resealed. The efforts to tamp it down will of course be frenzied, though discreet, with many well-meaning interlocuters playing key bridge-building roles.

At one level, the charges against the Chief Justice of India by the quartet, conscientious objectors or dissenters or mere disgruntled “equals” not being given their due ~ they may fit any of the descriptions depending on one’s perspective ~ may be dismissed as exaggerated expressions of piffling pique about essentially procedural and administrative hoops and tangles which they found themselves unable to adequately address.

There are far more fundamental problems which the hallowed institution must grapple with than keeping the wheels of administration whirring smoothly to the satisfaction of all the Judges. These are the common experiences of the nation ~ not what has been dished out ~ and relate to inaccessibility, tainted tie-ups and collusions, arrogant flaunting of power, activism bordering on usurpation of powers of cognate wings of the State edifice and most alarming of all, the mind-numbing delays which have the system in a near paralytic grip.

A recent report of the Allahabad High Court ~ the biggest in the country ~ to the Supreme Court bench, which incidentally included Justice Chelemeshwar, revealed that appeals have been pending for over 40 years and that the average disposal time is 12 years! Let’s also, for now, leave aside the most protracted legal dispute of Ayodhya. These fundamental, glaring deficiencies did not find even a passing reference either in the letter to the CJI, which was ignored for over two months, or in the press conference. Anyone who has had any dealing with governance institutions will know that non-response of an internal communication is no big deal.

As an aside, the one released for the information of the public was undated and unsigned and had nothing even remotely close to a damning indictment of the CJI. If indeed this was meant to be conveyed obliquely, it was not an act of boldness. Merely letting the nation know what is wrong and that it needs correction is not enough. We already know it. It is no secret. While it may not be judicial impropriety, as some have lambasted, the essence of the charges levelled are certainly not historic as is being made out and could have been worked out provided the Collegium worked harmoniously on all matters, which obviously it did not.
Why should the nation be bothered and burdened with this highly disappointing functional incapacity in the highest temple of justice? Why does it have to be left to the advocate Prashant Bhushan who heads the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reforms, to invoke the Supreme Court’s in-house procedure to deal with a demand for a probe against the CJI for “several acts of serious misconduct”? It would indeed have been a befitting revolt if the quartet had come out with some specifically damning allegations, after due diligence, instead of generalities, innuendos and routine hassles, jazzed up as imminent threats to the nation, and alongside, with an acute sense of responsibility, proposed radical course corrections.

Yashwant Sinha, senior BJP leader, had wistfully hoped that many MPs and Ministers would also raise banners of revolt a la the quartet. His hopes have been belied as this was plainly not a revolt. It was something much more diminutive in nature and reach.

It will be interesting to recall that in Parliament’s recently concluded ~ the shortest in recent times ~ winter session, the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Bill, 2017, was passed, trebling salaries and allowances. During the debate in the Lok Sabha, members across the political spectrum expressed concern over judicial overreach and called for a transparent system of judicial appointments in place of the Collegium system, which has now lost its halo irretrievably. Kalyan Banerjee of the Trinamul Congress, himself a legal eagle, sought to know whether the administrative side of the Supreme Court and High Courts were liable to give explanations to Parliament as the budget of the Judiciary was sanctioned by it.

The Executive, invariably at the receiving end of overbearing judicial “authority”, would chime in unison with the sentiment of the House.The nation is not going to break into an ecstatic swirl with more press briefings about thaws and melts in frosty relations within the Quintet. It will if there is real change which they ~ not the Quartet alone ~ can experience.

The writer is a retired IAS officer and comments on government issues.

Advertisement