Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The election of former Chief Justice of India, R.N. Mishra, to the Rajya Sabha on a Congress ticket is a milestone in the Indian judiciary. It has made several retired and sitting judges to ponder over the interface between judges and politicians in the context of personal career vs the judicial institution called the Supreme Court of India.
It also raises major questions about the chairmanship of the National Human Rights Commission, the last statutory public post occupied by Mishra who today carries the distinction of being the first retired Chief Justice of India to enter the Rajya Sabha on a party ticket.
Would the political party have given a ticket to an ordinary citizen minus the title of a former Chief Justice of India? Will a political party give a ticket even to a former Chief Justice of India without having known him earlier? Shouldn8217;t there be a public declaration on the party8217;s acquaintance with the former judge?
Mishra8217;s election on the Congress ticket only focuses on a serious problem about the independence of the judiciary that has been developing almost ever since the apex court was founded. Judge Subba Rao resigned from the Supreme Court to contest for the post of the President of India. His attempt to shift from one constitutional post to another did not succeed. But, argued the defenders of the judicial faith, trying for a constitutional post like that of the President should not raise any question especially after the judge has resigned. The answer tothat came a few years later when Justice Bahar-ul-Islam got a Congress party ticket and then resigned from the apex court to contest a Parliament seat from Assam.
The constitutional post-to-constitutional post argument did not hold water anymore. When the media interviewed Justice Islam, he was forthright and candid about his action. The Bar Council of India and the Supreme Court Bar Association kept quiet. There was not even muted protest from any of the companion judges in the apex court. Maybe rightly so in the context of preceding events. The two supersession battles or the post of Chief Justice of India had taught that while judges superseded may resign in protest, no tears would be shed by their companions who would benefit by such resignations. The comeback of the Congress party after the post-Emergency poll defeat had solicited congratulatory letters to Indira Gandhi from at least three Supreme Court judges. Out of these the 8220;rising sun8221; letter linking her comeback to the founding of legal aid forthe poor became the talking point. Legal aid became a political stepping stone, and ruling politicians do not ask what judges are doing with the public money given to them for this work.
Out went the message from the Union and state law ministers give judges whatever they want. It became a more common sight to see judges at the law ministry in Shastrai Bhavan, at lunches and dinners thrown by or for the Prime Minister and then at the houses of ministers. 8220;Democratic8221; and 8220;corporate8221; lawyers bodies grew up with judges as office bearers and evolved into bodies of humans rights under the same lawyers who became lawyers of clout, standing and of course money. Success took judges from national to international trips organised by the 8220;democratic8221; or 8220;corporate8221; lawyers bodies. Remember the path charted out by the attorney general who wrote to Indira Gandhi that now she was back in power the prices of vegetables, onions and potatoes would go down and law and order would improve. Come liberalisation andjudges have become judicial ambassadors duly structured in crosscountry membership forums with selected lawyers. And then the cornucopia of arbitration and opinion giving after retirement on letter heads announcing Chief Justice of India or Judge Supreme Court retired interspersed by royal judicial battles in getting on to government commissions and being selected by the government of the day for election to the International Court.
But what about the throwing out of Sheela Barse who told the judges on their face of what they were upto, or dismissal of Kalahandi famine petitions, the refusal to hear a petition about the eighty wining and dining judges mentioned by a retired Chief Justice of India, the shabby treatment to habeas corpus petitions, the hawala monitoring of police investigation ending in no investigation, the admitted pressurising of judges and their refusal to name or act against such persons, and the secrecy on the play of appointments and transfers? Don8217;t be a spoilsport of the judicialroyalty, might and supremacy and forget models like Justice A.C. Gupta or the large numbers who have done only their judicial work quietly. Remember the fading voice of a Krishna Iyer and a Tarkunde who truly walked with the lonely Indian. Between chance and necessity lies temptation.
