Judiciary on Trial

This book is both a commemoration and an inquest into judicial proceedings, as the Supreme Court of India turned 75 this year. [In]Complete Justice? The Supreme Court at 75: Critical Reflections is a commemoration because the book, edited brilliantly by S Muralidhar, noted lawyer and former Chief Justice of
the Orissa High Court, a relentless critic of various judgments, including landmark and sensitive ones, contains an introduction by him that ends on a note of hope.

What kind of hope? The hope that “if this book triggers dissent, debate and even perhaps disapproval, then it would have served its purpose”.

That is what the book does or is designed to do, with contributors like Madan Lokur, Vrinda Grover, Faizan Mustafa, Indira Jaising, Gopal Subramanium, and Raju Ramachandran—among others equally versatile—conducting what can be called an inquest into the court’s judgments since its first sitting on January 28, 1950.

Why an inquest? Because several writers, including Usha Ramanathan, Ajit Prakash Shah, S Ravindra Bhat, P Sainath, G Mohan Gopal, K Chandru, Gautam Bhatia, and the editor himself, dwell on how the judiciary, notably the Supreme Court, erred in delivering justice in crucial cases that went on to shape—or reshape—Indian politics and policies. Certain former judges, especially those who strayed from judicial propriety, stand exposed for failing to be accountable to the offices they held. Household names come in for no-holds-barred criticism, mainly those who, in pursuit of personal goals, have capitulated to the values of fairness and justice.

While Muralidhar’s views on various judges and judgments are well-known to those who have followed him closely—he has, for instance, repeatedly called out DY Chandrachud over what he describes as the “illogical” Ayodhya judgment—the essay by Raju Ramachandran is especially striking. It deserves to be re-read at a time when burnt currency notes worth crores of rupees have reportedly been found in a judge’s official residence. Beginning with the V Ramaswami case, Ramachandran explains corruption within the system, recalling tainted luminaries and their misadventures, and elaborating on allegations against chief justices of India, including JS Khehar, Dipak Misra, Ranjan Gogoi, and NV Ramana. He ends with a cold warning: “Unless efficacious avenues exist to investigate these departures from the ‘values of judicial life’, and judges lacking integrity are held accountable for their actions, these instances will continue to have a greatly damaging impact on the image and credibility of judicial institutions.”

Justice Lokur, a former Supreme Court judge, dissects the working of the collegium for appointing judges. He rues that the Executive is “increasingly playing a dominant role” in judicial appointments, and proposes a non-confrontational approach by the government, which, he argues, “will augur best for the independence of the judiciary, for the people of the country and for democracy”.

Lawyer Gautam Bhatia, in his stellar essay on media freedom, points out that some of the early cases “provided the Court an opportunity to think through these issues (especially the failure to grapple with the relationship between freedom of speech, an increasingly corporatised media sector, and the political economy), but the opportunity was not sufficiently taken up”.

This is a must-read for judges, lawyers, and the public alike, to better understand the limitations of the court in the face of political impulses and the excesses of power over the past 75 years. If we don’t admit them, we are in for a bumpy ride.  

Ajit Prakash ShahexecutivesG Mohan GopalGautam BhatiajudiciaryK ChandruP SainathS Ravindra BhatSupreme Court of IndiaUsha Ramanathan