In the justice conundrum who will judge the judges
Rome wasn’t built in a day. Nor was justice, reputedly a Roman product. Its global ambassador is the ubiquitous Justitia, whose sword-and-scales statue also adorns the front court of the Supreme Court of India.
Justitia’s blindfold stands for a neutral and objective interpretation of the law which is not influenced by political interests or power play. It could also indicate a blindness towards corruption among judges who suck up to power for promotions and post-retirement goodies. Currently, in America, that blindfold is askew, leaving an eye free to wink.
The global policeman of democracy and upholder of justice has some of the world’s most corrupt and biased judges on its benches. They give judgments favouring powerful politicians by twisting the law; accept bribes, and do not recuse themselves in cases with vested interests. The ideological views of a judge are not supposed to matter when they weigh in on issues, that must be considered strictly in its legal context.
Last week, a series of leaked confidential memos written by US Chief Justice John Roberts to his Donald Trump-appointed justices revealed his bias; he suggested Trump’s right to presidential immunity out of office be protected; a dangerous precedent because a future president who commits a crime while in office will enjoy immunity hereafter. In short, the US Supreme Court actively ruled to encourage crime.
The same court overturned a woman’s right to abortion. So much for the high values of SCOTUS which is just another political arm of MAGA; Trump judge Samuel Alito’s ruling supported lynch mobs who had invaded the Capitol Building to murder Democrats, while his wife flew the US flag upside down at home. Justice Clarence Thomas is America’s most notorious judge; he accepts kickbacks, receives gifts and luxury travel on the sly from Republican moneybags, who pay the private school tuition for his grandnephew.
Thomas refuses to pay back loans and flies privately to political fundraising dinners. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s staff got public institutions to buy copies of her books. Luxury fishing trips, superyacht cruises, personal real estate sold to law firms that were arguing cases before the judge, and socialising with politicians are par for the course in the highest echelons of the American legal universe. On the other hand, British justice on which our legal system is based, subverts justice—recently it freed a Pakistani asylum seeker for raping a British girl because the rapist wasn’t aware it was a crime to treat women as worthless.
The Opposition has been labelling SC judgments such as upholding the abrogation of Article 370 as pro-BJP. Hold that thought. In Russia, Turkiye, Burma, North Korea, and China, the real judge is the ruling despot. In Iran and Afghanistan, judges are semi-literate, robed guys who order stonings, whippings and hangings for crimes that would be laughed out of court in any decent country. The kangaroo courts of Bangladesh, the dubious jurists of Sri Lanka, and the politically elitist Supreme Court of Pakistan, does the blindfolded lady no favours in the neighbourhood.
The Indian judiciary is far ahead in upholding professional ethics, except for some curious cases like Ranjan Gogoi and a Rajya Sabha ticket. The recent pious hospitality of CJI Chandrachud humbly welcomed PM Modi home to pray to Lord Ganesha together, which got the opposition riled up. Couldn’t it be just two believers paying homage to Lord Vigneshwara: the god who removes obstacles? Law lies in interpretation, while justice lies in civilised impartiality. Hence democracy’s dilemma is, since it is judges who judge cases, who will judge the judges? While in Rome, do as the Romans do. Posterity is for cobwebs.
Ravi Shankar
ravi@newindianexpress.com