'Constitutional' protests

 The Chief Justice of India, while hearing the petition regarding farmers' protests, has observed that protests are constitutional as long as they do not endanger lives and damage property. This is a simplistic and controversial observation. This amounts to legalising gheraos and bandhs. 

Police has no authority to prevent constitutional activities. If a group of people blocks a road (minor or major road makes no difference) and if this activity is certified as constitutional by the highest judicial functionary in the country, how can the innocent public exercise its right to free movement? Does the CJI say that we have a constitutional right to inconvenience others in whatever way we want provided we desist from hitting them or damaging their property?

It appears that the anarchist forces are succeeding in perverting the course of justice. Farmer unions have welcomed various observations made by the court as a moral victory for them. In that case, they must be happy about the suggestions of the Supreme Court. They have also claimed that setting up new panels as suggested by the court will not resolve concerns. Are they happy that the issue will not be resolved?

The Supreme Court is losing its direction because of lobbying by the media. For example, The Hindu today carries an article by Mr.Harish Khare containing direct attacks on the Supreme Court and indirect attack on Modi. (Attacks on Modi and disparaging statements on institutions like courts are an essential requirement for publication of an article in the newspaper.)

Khare argues that 'judges are not in the business of soothing and smoothing.' What is the sin committed by the Supreme Court to warrant this argument? The author is annoyed that the court has shown politeness in dealing with the central government. While passing an order on Central Vista inauguration, the court had said, "We thought we were dealing with a prudent litigant and deference will be shown.... We have shown deference to you and expected that you will act in a prudent manner. The same deference should be shown to the court and there should be no demolition or construction." This is a polite way of warning the government to know its limits. But Khare is aghast that the court is polite towards the government. He calls this 'a protocol of deference' that is 'baffling and inexplicable.'

Deference means respect and politeness. In a democracy, institutions like courts and the government are not expected to deal with one another impolitely or disrespectfully. Anarchists are desperate to create misunderstanding and animosity among institutions.

Khare is unaware that firmness can be exercised politely. Such writers only endeavour to browbeat the judiciary into submission to their extraneous and heinous agenda of causing unrest in the country. He accuses the High Courts of being 'plainly unsympathetic to those who have had reason to critique and protest the Citizenship (Amendment) Act'. Do we see the cat out of the bag now? 

Harish Khare concludes his intimidation of the judiciary arguing that in the absence of 'countervailing judicial constraints' on the government, the 'kisans are manning the barricades at the Sindhu border' !

There is no wonder that the CJI is bullied enough to make the observation mentioned in the first paragraph.

Strange outpourings of legal luminaries

Legal profession demands that lawyers be opportunists and convenient twisters of logic. Opportunism done in excess attracts opprobrium. Reactions of legal luminaries to the outcome of the harassment charge against the CJI are a testimony to this.

In sexual harassment cases, law demands that anonymity of the complainant has to be ensured. The case needs to be concluded as speedily as possible so that agony for both the complainant and the accused is not extended over torturous time. But Prashant Bhushan has taken exception to in-camera proceedings and the 'haste' in completion. He complains, "An in-house committee of the CJI's colleagues which held informal proceedings in-camera without allowing the complainant a lawyer or a support person has given a hasty clean chit to the CJI."

Sanjay Hegde has contested Justice Bobde who is next only to the CJI  in seniority, heading the panel that enquired into the allegation. Why? The reasoning is as strange as it can get. "He will in all probability be the next CJI. Two of his immediate predecessors have come under public scrutiny of an unwelcome kind. The court has now chosen a status quoist denial over a serious exploration of the truth , regardless of risk. How will its actions be seen?" The insinuation is that Bobde is trying to protect himself against a possible complaint against him when he becomes the CJI. Activists are working overtime preparing affidavits against whoever becomes the next CJI?

Dushyant Dave makes a snide appeal to other judges of the Supreme Court. "Will the honourable judges stand up as the collective conscience of the Supreme Court?", he wants to know. Looking for a split in the court?

When eminent lawyers are keen on destroying the sanctity of courts in their attempts to denigrate a judge, the helpless citizen becomes more concerned about the future of the country.

Supreme Court under siege

It is distressing that there is a complaint against the Chief Justice of India that he had misbehaved with a lady Junior Court Assistant. Even as it is too premature to comment on the credibility or otherwise of the complaint, it is evident that the CJI is terribly upset. Under such immense psychological pressure, one is apt to make misjudgments. This is particularly sad because the function of a judge is to arrive at judgments.

The details provided by the complainant indicate that the CJI trained and even mentored her to become a better-informed and socially a more friendly person. He is said to have called her and texted her on many occasions before October 10th and 11th, 2018. These dates are relevant because the accusation is that the CJI misbehaved with her on these days.

The complainant has forwarded appeals against her harassment to the Delhi Commission of Women, Lieutenant Governor of Delhi Anil Baijal, the Prime Minister’s Office, the National Human Rights Commission, Special Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), Special Commissioner of Police (Law & Order), Chief Minister of Delhi Arvind Kejriwal, and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. The appeal contains elaborate and date-wise details. If the complaint is false, then some expert must have prepared it and made it cogent.

It is too early to conclude if the complaint is genuine or as some claim is intended to preclude the CJI from pronouncing judgments in some politically sensitive cases.
“The allegations regarding 11 October 2018, as well as other allegations, are completely and absolutely false and scurrilous and are totally denied,” according to the secretary-general of the Supreme Court.

Pressure is telling on the Supreme Court. Without hearing the complainant, the judges who sat in the Court on April 20, a holiday, characterised the complaint as "wild and scandalous." The judges asked the media to exercise restraint and remove such material which is undesirable. Acute embarrassment is writ large in these words.

Indian politics and judiciary are facing one crisis after another. If a citizen anxiously wonders if we are capable of governing ourselves, we need not be surprised.

CJI's faux pas

CBI Director Alok Verma's petition was heard by a three judge bench in the supreme court today. CJI Ranjan Gogoi was one of the three judges. Alok Verma has pleaded that CVC does not have the authority to insist on his proceeding on compulsory leave. Only the Appointments Committee of which CJI is an ex-officio member has the power to do so.

So the plaint was in effect telling the CJI, "Your powers are misused by the CVC." CJI himself cannot sit in judgment over usurpation or otherwise of his own joint-powers. This would amount to clear conflict of interest. It is a different matter that the court came to an impartial view that they would await report of the enquiry against Verma.

Lawyers like Prashant Bhushan who invent conflict of interest even if there is none preferred to be silent. Perhaps they do not want to be offensive towards the new CJI so early in his tenure as CJI and thereby antagonise him. Rahul Gandhi's demonstration for restoration of Alok Verma's powers and subsequent courting of arrest betray lack of appreciation of crucial issues involved. His consistent inability to rise to the occasion and play a responsible role as an opposition leader makes him undeserving of presidentship of the Congress party.

Chidambaram right and wrong

The former Home Minister who was also the Finance Minister for some time has criticised the Modi government for its over-sensitivity to Raghuram Rajan's logical observation about the need to avoid complacency. Chidambaram is right in accusing the government of seeing ghosts where there are none.

His attempts to justify his volte-face in the Ishrat Jahan case are of course pathetic. His indefensible role in the jihad against Modi and unlawful amassing of wealth by his son will come home to roost.

A new controversy has now arisen where Chidambaram as a lawyer can air his views. The public spat between the CJI and the PM is a sad spectacle. Both the government and the judiciary are living in glass houses. The question is not who is more duty-conscious. The question is who is more indolent. Modi himself may be working tirelessly. But this cannot be said of the rest of the government. Chief Justice Thakur may be burning midnight oil daily. Other judges are not known for their indefatigable labour.

Modi and Thakur ought to realise that they are not speaking for themselves. They represent and lead institutions. Claims that government is more efficient than judiciary or vice versa will only attract sarcastic comments. The government that could not bear Raghuram Rajan's balanced observation cannot be expected not to respond to CJI's livid and lachrymose comments. Fun has only begun.