Judges in controversy, courtesy judges
NEW DELHI: Judge Arun Mishra criticized the controversy for devoting two prayers in his seven-page thank-you vote to describe the prime minister. Narendra Modi as an internationally acclaimed visionary and a versatile genius, who thinks globally and acts locally.
In an unprecedented step, the Supreme Court Bar Association, led by adopted a resolution that censures Judge Mishra for singing hymns to the Prime Minister and appealed to the judges to refrain from having close proximity with political executives to maintain judicial independence and the faith of the public in court.
Judge Mishra's praise for the prime minister - think globally and act locally - was denied when communal riots burned parts of Delhi and the police, under the control of the Center, seemed lethargic. The situation is now under control, but it remains a mystery why the police had no idea about planning to unleash the chaos.
To the credit of Judge Mishra, he was honest about his admiration for the Prime Minister. There are many judges who wear different masks in public and private. More on that later. First, let's analyze an emerging trend among SC judges to present themselves as defenders of peaceful protests anywhere as an intrinsic right to the right to freedom of expression and expression.
Given the blockade of Shaheen Bagh for more than two months, should they have talked about it? What happens if a similar case is presented to them tomorrow? Will the parties, both for and against, feel safe from justice? Will they refrain from hearing such cases having made their views public?
Recently, Justice said: The right to dissent is the greatest right and, in my opinion, the most important right guaranteed by the Constitution. He said that those in power cannot affirm that they represent the will of the people. Who represents the will of the people? We would like to know.
Judge Gupta, now professing his love for dissent, was part of a diametrically opposed course of action on August 8, 2018, while in a bank headed by Lokur. When the suo motu bank took invasions throughout Himachal Pradesh, the state lawyer said Judge Gupta's wife had filed a PIL related to the invasion of forest land in HP.
The simple fact of pointing out a fact got the goat from the bank. “Why is the state posing this problem? You have nothing better to do? asked the bank. Finding that the lawyer did not have a copy of the PIL, he said that a court officer (lawyer) should not be a spokesman or government chammach. So much for freedom of expression and dissent!
Judge D And Chandrachud, in a highly acclaimed recent speech, said: “The destruction of spaces for questioning and dissent destroys the basis of all growth: political, economic, cultural and social. In this sense, dissent is a security valve for democracy. ”
He was right. But a chronic obsession to criticize will not forgive even the most holy. The right to freedom of expression is increasingly used to score a point or scare a judge. Dissidence and criticism often point not to help a person correct mistakes, but to make them squirm.
Take, for example, the recent historical sentence of Judge Chandrachud that grants a permanent commission to the official women in the non-combat body of the Army. At trial, Ordinance was referred to as Ordinance seven times. Would it be a fair criticism if one says the judge who does not know the difference between Ordinance and Ordinance is unable to decide a sensitive issue about the Army? That would be unfair and below the belt.
Many renowned defenders and politicians, opposed to the current dispensation, resort to skull work to lament that SC judges were never so indebted to the political executive. We will follow the advice of the SC at trial D [(1982) 1 SCC 510]. Sometimes, past events can help assess current behavior.
A staunch congressman, Bahrul Islam, resigned to become a judge of Gauhati HC in 1972 and retired on March 1, 1980. Nine months after retirement, he became a SC judge in December 1980. Six weeks before retirement and one month after giving a In a case of forgery, he resigned from the SC to challenge the LS elections to the then chief minister of the Bihar Congress Jagannath Mishra in a case of forgery. The polls were postponed and he was elected as Deputy of Congress by RS for the third time in June 1983.
Someone who somehow reflected Justice Islam was Justice, who diligently carried out the task assigned by then PM Rajiv Gandhi to investigate the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Delhi and not find anyone responsible for the massacre of more than 3,000 Sikhs. After retiring as CJI, he led the NHRC and became a deputy of the RS for Congress in 1998. Judges Islam and Misra did not need to sing hymns at the first PM. They were masters in camouflaging their loyalties. And there were many more like them.
The SC judgment in the R C Chandel case [2012 (8) SCC 58] had said: A judge, like César's wife, should be beyond suspicion. The credibility of the judicial system depends on the judges who handle it. For a democracy to prosper and the rule of law to survive, the justice system and the judicial process must be strong and each judge must fulfill its judicial functions with integrity, impartiality and intellectual honesty. ”