Knocking on the Wrong Doors for Justice

Four senior judges of the Supreme Court (J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurien Joseph) created a history of sorts when they held a press conference to hold Chief Justice Dipak Misra
Knocking on the Wrong Doors for Justice

Four senior judges of the Supreme Court (J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurien Joseph) created a history of sorts when they held a press conference to hold Chief Justice Dipak Misra guilty of arbitrarily allocating cases to their junior colleagues. In doing so, they suddenly became one of us: ever agitating and demanding. Their accusation implied that junior judges were professionally inadequate and unlike them, could not be trusted to apply their mind equitably to cases of far reaching consequences. In effect, they damned the very process of selection of these judges, of which they were a part.

It is not unique for the head of an institution to assign work among his colleagues in the manner he prefers. It is also not unique for those, who feel ignored for spurious reasons, to resent. The problem of perception will always be there. An officer may appear to be mediocre, shifty and sycophant to the deprived ones, but the chief may find him dynamic, hardworking and trustworthy. 

As the first among equals, Chief Justice Misra enjoys an inherent right to apportion cases based on his understanding of who can deliver the judgement best. Those who disagree, have a right to argue and record their dissent but eventually, they have to accept his decision. That is how the societies and systems work and anarchy is avoided. Ideally, the aggrieved judges should have resigned and then gone to the people to expose Chief Justice Misra’s alleged partisanship.   

That the Supreme Court is not a happy home, has been known for a long time. The malaise is typical of institutions that are overly self-protective, clusterphobic and intolerant. Look at the irony. The judges insist on appointing themselves, RTI does not apply to them, declaration of their assets is purely on voluntary basis, their removal is possible only through a tortuous process of impeachment and they are accountable to none—the President, Parliament, executive and people, including. No one can cast aspersion on them or on their judgements. But they are not prepared to pay a price for these privileges. The price is that they must resolve their problems internally, whatever be the cost. But if they wish to go to the public with their grievances, they must accept to be accountable to outside regulatory institutions.  
Officers of R&AW can understand the agony of the four judges better. Their chief also distributes work and assigns operations which often appear capricious and motivated by strong personal likes and dislikes. But they cannot demonstrate their frustration in press conferences unless they have a death wish to be sacked and imprisoned. The judges like RAW officers are part of a culture which requires that they respect the decisions of their leader with quiet dignity and bid for their time to rectify the alleged improprieties.

There is another critical reason why Chief Justice Misra would ignore seniority while distributing cases. Judges do not descend from heavens. They are product of their political, social and religious environment and liberal or conservative grooming. It is natural that these factors would reflect in their judgements, though in varying degrees.

It is easy to discern the tilt in their observations made during the hearing of cases such as freedom of expression, gay rights, aadhaar, entry of Rohingya refugees, construction of Ram Mandir and Judge Loya’s death. You know, why a judge expresses outrage over the firing of pellet guns by security forces on Kashmiri stone-pelters, while his colleague finds pro-Pak and pro-ISIS slogans as demoralising to ‘martyrs who return homes in a coffin draped in tricolour’. Similarly, when a judge terms the defection of Congress MLAs in Uttarakhand a constitutional ‘sin for which they will have to pay’, you know his religious sensibilities. 

The judgement on Triple Talaq clearly reflected the bias, accruing from their background. It is difficult to imagine that a five-judge bench comprising judges from SC, ST, OBC, Jat and Patidar will not enhance the ceiling of 50 per cent reservation. Since prejudice, belief and conviction cannot be easily shed, it makes enormous sense that Chief Justice Misra exercises his discretion and constitutes benches with judges from mixed background and different age-groups. He cannot leave the nation’s destiny to some roaster system or accident of birth. 

Hopefully, history will not repeat itself and judges will continue to trust the wisdom of their chief. Journalists, politicians, lawyers and NGOs cannot provide relief to their grievances. These opportunists went to the press conference on January 12, only to feast on their exasperations and run away with the pedestal on which the Supreme Court stands.
amarbhushan@hotmail.com

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com