• Associate Sponsor

When judges dissent

The ultimate guarantee of fairness as justice lie with the justices themselves

Written by UPENDRA BAXI | Published: January 18, 2018 12:00 am
Supreme Court, Supreme Court Judges, Judicial Crisis, SC Judges, CJI, CJI Dipak Mishra, Justice Chelameswar, Kurian Joseph, Editorial News, Indian Express, Indian Express News The Supreme Court. (Express Photo by Tashi Tobgyal)

No matter how the matters are for the time being resolved (and swiftly on all indications), the present crisis in the Supreme Court involves mainly a contention on how judicial business should be conducted. The extraordinary movement of four justices in making public a letter addressed to the chief justice of India (CJI) in November 2017, and assorted observations at the press conference last week are very unusual judicial happenings. At that conference, Justice Chelameswar said that “less than desirable things have happened” and the protesting justices vainly “tried to collectively persuade” the CJI to take “remedial measures”. These happenings are now made even more unusual by Justice Ranjan Gogoi reportedly denying any “crisis” and Justice Kurian Joseph saying the matter is now settled leaving little scope for “outside intervention”.

However, the letter released at the press conference said otherwise; it spoke of the ways in which “the overall functioning of the justice delivery system”, the “independence of the high courts”, and the functioning of the office of the CJI have been “adversely affected”. A moving appeal to the Indian “Nation” was issued at the press conference and Justice Chelameswar justified speaking out, lest “wise people” say later that they were complicit.

A situation where four senior-most justices went public to express their discontent with the present CJI’s exercise of authority to constitute Benches raises grave constitutional questions. Although only an in-house rectification can save matters, it is an anti-democratic error of grave proportions to think that co-citizens should have no interest, stake, or say in the matter.

Undoubtedly, the chief justices, whether of the high courts or the SC, have the power to order the roster. The question is whether that power is coupled with a constitutional duty to follow certain conventions. Obviously, there are a few: Chief justices have a primary duty of accountability to the Brother Justices, the Bar, and a general obligation through the Bar to the litigating public and people at large. But when a letter by four senior justices has been ignored for about two months, is going public with a copy of that letter and holding even a press conference unjudicial? On this question opinions are varied. Some have lauded this step as heroic while others regard this as “sheer trade union tactics” and some even say the step was extremely unfortunate but now some institutional solidarity should pave the path ahead.

What are the other conventions? First, a part-heard matter may not be divested from the co-justices who are seized with it. Second, the CJI may not deny a request for recusal on grounds of conflict of interest. Third, the chief justice may not ignore the requests by co-justices to form a larger Bench. Fourth, a chief justice may not selectively assign sensitive or important cases to the same judges. However, fifth, it is doubtful whether there is, or ought to be, a convention requiring such matters to be heard only by the senior-most justices. No, because the decision to elevate a citizen to judgeship must involve all relevant considerations; once elevated, a justice is co-equal to all other brethren.

Sixth, it is true that co-equality occurs within a hierarchy: Not every justice becomes a chief justice, and the SC collegium must comprise the five senior-most justices. Outside this framework, the question about the rank-ordering may not arise; all justices speak for the constitutional court. Any discussion about benches headed by “junior” justices is therefore injudicious.

The second issue looming large is the finalisation of Memorandum of Procedure (MoP). In early July 2017 (in Justice Karnan’s case), at least two justices observed a need “to revisit the process of appointment of judges and establishment of a mechanism for corrective measures other than impeachment”. The letter also suggests that the issue of MoP “cannot linger on for indefinite period” and since the government has not responded to the MoP sent as far back as March 2017, the Court must now presume this long “silence” amounts to acceptance. Convening a full court and/or an agreement of the chief justices’ conference stand was suggested. The highest court in the land cannot endlessly wait for the government.

Endless discussion surrounds the suspicious death of Justice B.M. Loya hearing the case of “fake encounter killing” of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, although everyone involved agrees that a discussion of a specific pending case before the SC is highly inappropriate. The fact that a justice was appointed in the present regime cannot be any objection at all as all justices are elevated in some regime! If, however, there is compelling evidence that a justice is consistently partial, an impeachment proceeding is the only correct answer. Senior counsel has argued that the matter be heard in the Bombay High Court first where the petition was filed, and the Court should issue a reasoned opinion on this.

Competitive party politics cannot but take sides in this debate, but justices must act on evidence and arguments before them. Political actors work with an interest in specific outcomes, but a judicial judgment must be devoid of any personal stake in the outcome. Since justice must appear to be done, it is also the convention that not all sensitive matters should be sent to the same Bench.

The remedies of impeachment and removal for judicial misconduct and review, and now curative jurisdiction, constitutionally exist. And further, the spectre of the call of conscience to go to the “Nation” will now haunt all chief justices. Informed criticism has some impact on judicial dispositions. But the ultimate guarantee of fairness as justice lie with the justices themselves. As Eugene Ehrlich, a founder of European sociology of law, said: “The best guarantee of justice lies in the personality of the judge.” Justices must be seen practising what they preach to the other holders of public power. It is only when they collectively fail to do so that a democracy is truly imperilled.

The writer is professor of law, University of Warwick, and former vice chancellor of the Universities of South Gujarat and Delhi

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App

Upendra Baxi
  • A New Ecology for Education

    Tackling the old question of what’s ailing Indian universities with solutions that build well on traditional prescriptions for the system..

  • A great betrayal

    State impunity continues for acts of torture. Lawmakers and court have not stepped up to their duty ..

  • Opening new doors

    The Right to Privacy affirms, for the 21st century, the vision of a ‘constitutional renaissance’..

  1. India First
    Jan 18, 2018 at 9:08 pm
    Results speak for themselves. Democracy sounds good...but the grater good of the nation must come first. You cannot appease everybody. The judges needs to be pulled out of their robes and slapped in public by irate people who are tired of slow system.
    1. India First
      Jan 18, 2018 at 9:03 pm
      The British got things done. With Gun and lathi. Indians are obstinate and stubborn. Me thinks....British Model needs to be followed...not the BS democracy imposed by them on India....beacuse they are free now. Right now...it is Chaos so cracy!!!!. Need Communists???? Or Military Rule???? Because democracy wastes too much time mak,ing decisions and getting things done on the ground. Results speak for themselves. Look at China.........Things get done. Look at USA and INdia?????? Dumbocracy is what I call it..............
      1. P
        Jan 18, 2018 at 4:54 pm
        The judicial quagmire is the result of contribution by the judges themselves, the lawyers and the litigants. dynasties resulting in Uncle judges, Lawyers indulging in bench hunting and litigants collaborating with the corrupt to secure favouarable verdict all contributes in compounding position.
        1. O
          Jan 18, 2018 at 3:45 pm
          2/2(Contd...). How come so many inefficient, deficient judges continue in the country at different levels. Why no accountability, no responsibility gets fixed on these judges for causing gross miscarriage of justice? Why not the SC communicate from now onwards such highly adverse comments in court verdicts against some judges to the CJ of the concerned high court for necessary actions against the guilty judges, by way of compulsory transfer to other states, delaying their further promotions for quite a few years, assigning them some admin. jobs for a few years or no jobs at all etc? Unless some such disciplinary actions are taken against the errant inefficient judges, many more such instances of gross miscarriage of justice from lower courts, high courts will continue unabated in future. These judges are simply not bothered about any possible disciplinary actions against them. They are very well insulated/protected by influential quarters! For decades!
          1. O
            Jan 18, 2018 at 3:42 pm
            1/3: Demand forParti tion in some particular benches for court hearings in the SC for giving questionable judgements seems to be the main agenda for such latest demands in the SC. Bowing to such pressure tactics seems highly undesirable and need to be thoroughly discouraged most assertingly. Proper timely benchings for some judges certainly desirable in the apex court and in some high courts but only in the sense operating in the private sector, in the software industry! Henceforth promotions in judiciary must be on merit seniority basis only . Past is past. No more promotions in SC on seniority alone. Remember, yet again, So many highly flawed highly questionable judgements seen often coming from lower courts and then nullified by high courts on a number of counts. and then again many high court judgements also getting struck down in the supreme court for several reasons, passing indirect strictures against the errant inefficient judges concerned. (Contd...)
            1. India First
              Jan 18, 2018 at 9:05 pm
              They need Military rule who carriesz swift enforcement of rules.....not after 20 years.
            2. Load More Comments