On November 12, 2017, we wrote under the caption 'Supreme Court' as follows:
"We can expect more fireworks from the Supreme Court in the near future. A recent cartoon regarding the American Congress says that what was meant to be an institution of checks and balances has become an institution of only checks (cheques). It is hoped that our Supreme Court will not reduce itself to be similarly portrayed. " We took exception to the Chief Justice taking administrative decision in a case that potentially involves him.
It is our misfortune that we have been proved correct. Four judges of the Collegium of the Supreme Court have publicly questioned the administrative style of the Chief Justice.
Legalservicesindia.com says,
"As far as possible a Judge should keep off the media. He should refrain from expressing his views in media on matters either pending before him or likely to appear for judicial consideration. Else he may be accused of prejudging the issue and his neutrality may be questioned thereby. Lord Widgery, Lord Chief Justice of England since 1971 to 1980, said that “the best judge is the man who should not court publicity and should work in such a way that they don’t catch the eyes of the newsmen”. Lord Hailsham said that the “best judges are those who do not find their names in the The Daily Mail and still, who abhor it” (quoted from David Pannick QC, 'Judges')"
Judges are after all human beings. But problem arises when they want to prove this time and again by their behaviour. We sorrowfully witnessed the case of Justice Karnan who egregiously ran his brother judges down and because he was only a High Court judge, he ran into trouble. What the four judges have done in convening a press meet and distributing copies of a letter they had earlier written to the Chief Justice is karnanesque plus . These four deserve the treatment that was meted out to Karnan with greater force.
If these recalcitrant judges are treated with kid gloves, such acts of infamy will become frequent. If judges in various High Courts rise in revolt against their Chief Justices, will the Supreme Court have any moral authority to discipline them?
Why did these eminent judges call for a press meet? If the purpose was only to ensure correction of deviant administrative practices, it could be pardoned. The purpose as it turned out was much less noble. As Justice Chelameswar unknowingly admitted, "We don't want some wise men in future accuse us of having sold our souls." They only want to be beyond personal criticism. Their primary intent is not protection of judicial propriety. They have let down judicial dignity trying to promote their public image.
The foursome did not discuss the administrative problem with other judges of the Supreme Court probably because they thought that the Collegium judges were a class apart and it was infra dig to confabulate with their 'juniors'. They claimed in their letter that the Chief Justice was only the first among equals. They failed to realise that puisne judges (there are 20 judges in the Supreme Court junior to the Collegium five) were as eminent as them in their legal expertise and were equally capable of judging cases of 'national importance'. A false sense of superiority misled the four to throw the time-honoured principle of judicial restraint to the winds.
Chelameswar's conduct has been abominable. Immediately after the avoidable press meet, he committed the cardinal indiscretion of meeting a politician, D.Raja. Raja meeting the judge is bad enough. But Raja has gone on record that the suggestion for meeting was made by the judge during a phone conversation. So, Chelameswar took the initiative for a personal meeting with a politician. Far from abjuring politics which a judge is supposed to do, Chelameswar has become incestuous with politics.
Chelameswar is respected as a judge who maintains judicial integrity. If he himself denigrates judiciary in this manner, we can only fearfully imagine what other judges are up to. We desperately need a renaissance in our legal system with a rules-based legislation on judges' responsibility and duties to keep Karnans and Chelameswars at bay.
The word 'unlettered' also means unenlightened. That is why we call this rebellion unlettered though a letter is the pivot of this controversy.
"We can expect more fireworks from the Supreme Court in the near future. A recent cartoon regarding the American Congress says that what was meant to be an institution of checks and balances has become an institution of only checks (cheques). It is hoped that our Supreme Court will not reduce itself to be similarly portrayed. " We took exception to the Chief Justice taking administrative decision in a case that potentially involves him.
It is our misfortune that we have been proved correct. Four judges of the Collegium of the Supreme Court have publicly questioned the administrative style of the Chief Justice.
Legalservicesindia.com says,
"As far as possible a Judge should keep off the media. He should refrain from expressing his views in media on matters either pending before him or likely to appear for judicial consideration. Else he may be accused of prejudging the issue and his neutrality may be questioned thereby. Lord Widgery, Lord Chief Justice of England since 1971 to 1980, said that “the best judge is the man who should not court publicity and should work in such a way that they don’t catch the eyes of the newsmen”. Lord Hailsham said that the “best judges are those who do not find their names in the The Daily Mail and still, who abhor it” (quoted from David Pannick QC, 'Judges')"
Judges are after all human beings. But problem arises when they want to prove this time and again by their behaviour. We sorrowfully witnessed the case of Justice Karnan who egregiously ran his brother judges down and because he was only a High Court judge, he ran into trouble. What the four judges have done in convening a press meet and distributing copies of a letter they had earlier written to the Chief Justice is karnanesque plus . These four deserve the treatment that was meted out to Karnan with greater force.
If these recalcitrant judges are treated with kid gloves, such acts of infamy will become frequent. If judges in various High Courts rise in revolt against their Chief Justices, will the Supreme Court have any moral authority to discipline them?
Why did these eminent judges call for a press meet? If the purpose was only to ensure correction of deviant administrative practices, it could be pardoned. The purpose as it turned out was much less noble. As Justice Chelameswar unknowingly admitted, "We don't want some wise men in future accuse us of having sold our souls." They only want to be beyond personal criticism. Their primary intent is not protection of judicial propriety. They have let down judicial dignity trying to promote their public image.
The foursome did not discuss the administrative problem with other judges of the Supreme Court probably because they thought that the Collegium judges were a class apart and it was infra dig to confabulate with their 'juniors'. They claimed in their letter that the Chief Justice was only the first among equals. They failed to realise that puisne judges (there are 20 judges in the Supreme Court junior to the Collegium five) were as eminent as them in their legal expertise and were equally capable of judging cases of 'national importance'. A false sense of superiority misled the four to throw the time-honoured principle of judicial restraint to the winds.
Chelameswar's conduct has been abominable. Immediately after the avoidable press meet, he committed the cardinal indiscretion of meeting a politician, D.Raja. Raja meeting the judge is bad enough. But Raja has gone on record that the suggestion for meeting was made by the judge during a phone conversation. So, Chelameswar took the initiative for a personal meeting with a politician. Far from abjuring politics which a judge is supposed to do, Chelameswar has become incestuous with politics.
Chelameswar is respected as a judge who maintains judicial integrity. If he himself denigrates judiciary in this manner, we can only fearfully imagine what other judges are up to. We desperately need a renaissance in our legal system with a rules-based legislation on judges' responsibility and duties to keep Karnans and Chelameswars at bay.
The word 'unlettered' also means unenlightened. That is why we call this rebellion unlettered though a letter is the pivot of this controversy.
No comments:
Post a Comment