The word ‘unprecedented’ is going to get tossed around a lot in the coming few days. A realm that is normally held to be sacrosanct and beyond the reach of the commentariat was opened up like a body in an anatomy class. And those who did it were, stunningly enough, sage members of the highest judicial body of the country. A day after India’s judiciary created history by elevating a senior woman advocate to the chair of a Supreme Court judge, four senior-most SC judges made a different kind of history.
The judges, seated almost like a Bench, talking to journalists in an open-air press conference, voicing a sort of no-confidence vote on the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra. They did what would have been impossible for any other citizen—ascribing motives to the CJI’s administrative decisions and complaining about his lack of receptivity to their ideas.
It would be difficult at present to assess what salutary end can be found to this judicial ‘revolt’. But such a harmonious conclusion has to be reached, sooner rather than later. At stake are not just those questions that first arose during the Collegium debate, but a new set of intriguing questions. How is work to be allocated between judges? What governs those decisions? Does the Chief Justice have to take on board the opinion of his fellow judges on these? Or should he continue to be the sole master of the roster?
Frantic as these questions might seem, there was an understandable note of urgency in the tone adopted by the four judges. Democracy itself would be in danger if these issues were not settled while there was still time. As Justice Chelameswar said, “We don’t want wise men saying 20 years from now that Justice Chelameswar, Gogoi, Lokur and Kurian Joseph sold their souls and didn’t do the right thing by our Constitution.” Indeed, restoring the judiciary to the pristine existence mandated to it in the Constitution is the need of this momentous moment.