All appointed constitutional authorities in the country should spare more time to address grievances of the people. It’s better that they don’t interfere in serious political matters. Those should be left to Parliament’s wisdom
Not too many months ago, the Supreme Court threw out the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, terming it unconstitutional. The 99th Constitutional Amendment attempted to put in place a supposedly transparent and independent institution, and the process for selection of judges to the High Courts and the Supreme Court, which has over the years become the sole prerogative of the judiciary. It was rejected, despite the fact that it had been passed by both Houses of Parliament and 20 State legislative Assemblies — no mean feat given the fractious nature of polity. It naturally set the stage for a confrontation between the political class and the judiciary that goes on to this day.
However, given the reality of our political class and the self-serving manner in which they have behaved over the years, their very unanimity in pushing through such an Act, it leads to suspicions as to their real motives. Regardless of what one may feel about the state of the criminal justice system and governance in the country, the judiciary has ensured a modicum of accountability among the political class and the bureaucracy, which have over the years, increasingly behaved as law unto themselves.
Having said that, one does have niggling fears as to the manner in which a collegium of judges headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) presently go about selecting judges, especially given the public objections raised by Justice J Chelameswar. Undoubtedly, the system is opaque and provides almost exclusive power in the hands of judges, especially the Chief Justice of India. One cannot help, but be reminded of the universal truth that “wars are too serious a matter to be left to the Generals” — which incidentally has been taken to ridiculous extents within our country, where the military is all but ignored by the security establishment. However, this truism is just as relevant across the board, whether it pertains to governance or the justice system.
There can be no two opinions that governance should not, and cannot be just the exclusive preserve of the political and bureaucratic class. This is equally applicable to the judiciary. Despite some distinguished judges who have done yeoman service in upholding democratic values and freedom, the judiciary hasn’t exactly distinguished itself over the years, given the enormous backlog of pending cases and allegations of corruption and nepotism. We have had allegations being made in open court by former Union Minister for law and Justice, Shanti Bhushan, that eight apex court judges had not been above board.
It is ironic that the most vehement opposition to the Supreme Court’s orders in this case, has come from eminent lawyer and Finance Minister, Arun Jaitley. He suggests, “There is no constitutional principle that democracy and its institutions have to be saved from elected representatives. The Indian democracy cannot be a tyranny of the unelected, and if the elected are undermined, democracy itself would be in danger.” Unfortunately, it is also undeniable that we already face tyranny from the unelected as rampant mobs continue to take law into their own hands, while the organs of the state look on passively, and give short shrift to the very concept of democratic freedoms and the rule of law.
Be that as it may, the Supreme Court appears to have crossed the lakshman Rekha by refusing to stop courts from interfering on the issue of demonetisation, a move taken by the Modi Government.
It has for all these years blatantly ignored the distress citizens face in obtaining justice, thanks to lack of any accountability among the judicial fraternity. It would greatly help if the judges were more transparent, cut down on their vacations, increased their work timing, used technology to speed up the process and clamped down on their verbosity. Instead of constantly interfering in the executive and legislative domains, the judiciary would do well to concentrate on providing speedy justice.
However, expecting any change for the better by them is wishful thinking, given the fact that the Chief Justice of this country has gone on public record to state that the common citizen has no right to question the level of security cover provided to judges. This pertains to a PIl filed in the curious case of the Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court, Justice Uma Nath Singh, taking suo motu notice, and directing the Government to provide him, and all other judges’, security after their retirement at their place of residence.
This ‘honourable’ judge is much in demand after retirement. Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal wants him as Chairman of Delhi’s Human Rights Commission while the CJI wants him to head a tribunal. This is a telling comment on the prevailing state of affairs in public life.
There is little doubt that appointed constitutional authorities in this country, be they members of Parliament or the judiciary, have made a mockery of the Constitution, and have in ways and means not available to the common citizen, increasingly made themselves neither accountable nor answerable to anybody. It is of course another matter that all perks of office that they carry into retirement is achieved at the cost of the taxpayer, who cannot be permitted to raise questions on how his money is expended.
(The writer is a military veteran and consultant with the Observer Research Foundation)