Skip to main content

Is Supreme Court of India Crumbling?



A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone is a good thing; but independence from the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.
-Thomas Jefferson
(Declaration of Independence)

‘Independence of Judiciary’, a phrase for which people around the world have sacrificed their lives since time immemorial. It was emphasized by the founding father of our constitution and was made a part of basic structure of the Constitution of India in Keshwananda Bharti v. Union of India (1973) so that it could never be compromised. Supreme Court has been proactive and has been sitting like a watchdog to wreck any attempt made on its independence, NJAC was struck down on the pretext of independence of the judiciary as it was allegedly seen as an attack from the Executive on Judicial Independence. Never to mention, Supreme Court has unpreceded success in recent times also in this mission of theirs.

But the question still stands tall, ‘is our judiciary independent?’ and the answer would be 'from external elements most probably yes' but what about independence from within? Where is rule of law within apex court? Does it work like every other institution in a democratic nation is supposed to work?  Well, I am afraid the answer to the above-posed question is very unsettling. The working of Indian Supreme Court has been widely questioned and criticized in light of recent events that took place in Apex Court which has turned out to be the blind spot in face of our democratic setup.

The recent judgment of Supreme Court in CJAR v. Union of India (2017) in which court opined that ‘Chief Justice is the master of the rooster and he alone has the prerogative in constituting constitutional benches’ annulling an order of division bench which constituted a Constitutional bench of five senior-most judges of the Court humiliating the bench that passed the order. Also, turning down the request of the petitioner in the present case that CJI does not deal with present petition neither in judicial capacity nor in the administrative capacity, he dealt with the petition on both sides. Is Chief justice of India above law? How can anyone in such a sacred institution have absolute, unguided, and arbitrary power? These are only questions but there is no answer coming from court with judiciary hitting a new low every day. As it seems, Hon’ble CJI has forgotten their accountability toward the people of the country whom he is serving.

Recently a number of important matters have been adjudicated by/ pending adjudication before the Constitution bench of Supreme Court. In all these benches a depressing trend can be observed where only a handful of selected SC judges are part of these important constitutional benches. Senior judges like Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi and Madan Lokur have been completely & constantly ignored not being made part of nearly any Constitution bench constituted under the tenure of present CJI. What can be the reason for such ignorance? Either God or Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mishra himself knows answer to this question as these are some of the most celebrated and learned judges of Supreme Court. It all indicates towards forming of fractions within the apex court, which in itself is not a problem but now these fractions are so apparent that someone can hardly ignore it which is a huge setback to the credibility of Apex Court. Now if in the light of above judgment of SC present scenario is considered then nothing can be done about it because that is what ‘king’ wants.

 Although the phrase goes as ‘be you ever so high, the law is above you’ but in the case of Indian SC it is modified into ‘be you ever so high, CJI is above you’. If such arbitrariness exists in the temple of justice then common people cannot be expected to show faith in such institution which is actually happening, Olympus is crumbling.  After all, CJI is also a man and like all other men, he is not infallible and such power and prerogative invested in one individual will lead to the destruction of a highly respected institution.  

Chief Justice of India or for that reason any other person cannot be made a repository of such unchecked and unadulterated power otherwise the end is inevitable. Much can be drawn from the speech of B R Ambedkar in Constituent Assembly while our constituent was being drafted in which he stated:
"chief justice no doubt is a very eminent, person. But after all the chief justice is a man with all the failings, all the sentiments and all the prejudices which we as common people have"

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The conundrum of free speech

‘ You've got a nerve, coming into this muhalla! I know you: my father knows you: everyone knows you're a Hindu!! ' screams the Midget Queen.  Boys in their school whites and snake buckle are joining in, 'Hindu! Hindu! Hindu! From his window Midget Queen’s father joins in, hurling abuses at the new target… ‘Mother rapers! Violator of our daughters…!’ and the schoolboys have begun to chant 'Ra-pist! Ra-pist! Ray-ray-ray-pist!' without really knowing what they're saying. Their victim, Lifafa Das is trying to get away but by now he is surrounded by voices filled with blood- This episode from Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children , placed in the turmoil and unrest of partition, portrays the complex magic of words. Words have strange power; they can stir emotions and cause commotions in turbulent times. And these are turbulent times. It seems as if speech has been given a free hand to prey on the life of heads that donned skullcaps, shoulders that were draped i

Ms. Marvel adds the jewel of South Asia to MCU’s crown of diversity

For Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) ‘superhero’ has a standard definition. They are intelligent, sedulous, good looking, sacrificing, male, white and the hope of humanity. The conception is so immutable that even though recently there have been number of female characters portraying such characters, we still don’t have a word for female super'hero'? Merriam Webster says it is ‘superheroine’, as it logically should be. But it hasn’t really caught up and also it does not have that ‘superhero waali feeling’ as is also the case with ‘superhuman’, which misses the concept of ‘protagonist’ altogether. Even the storyline of these superhero movies is quite standard. A city in the US is in danger. It falls in the hands of a superhero, as defined above, to save millions of lives because it is his destiny to do so. A fight ensues between the superhero and the villain amongst the high-rise buildings of a metropolitan American city. It is the fantasy story of an ordinary westerner which is

Thanos is a utilitarian!

Image Courtesy- TeePublic If a close analysis is undertaken of all superhero movies, then a common denominator underlying all plots will be discovered. Every superhero tale has a moral dimension, but it is quintessentially limited to the protagonist. That is to say, the superhero alone has the might of the right with him. Invariably accompanying him is the badness of the villain. Badness in the sense, the values that he stands for and things he fights for. This element is indispensable because goodness is relative. You need to give something worse to the viewer, to which he can compare the alleged good part and arrive at the conclusion which storyteller wants to sell; the superhero was indeed good! This is the cliché tale of every superhero movie and Marvel Entertainment has been no different about it. Start watching Marvel Universe movies starting from Iron Man (2008), Captain America, Thor, Avengers, and all their sequels and you will possibly get my point. But in Avenger