Matter of Honour

Only judges can resolve the issues plaguing the judiciary and restore its credibility.

- Soni Mishra

ON MAY 18, his last working day as a Supreme Court judge, Justice J. Chelameswar sat in court number one along with Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. Chelameswar looked relaxed, and Misra reached out to him often for a quick discussion on the case being heard.

The scene was a perfect depiction of the camaraderie that brother judges of the apex court are known for. However, on this occasion, it was rather ironic, as Chelameswar and Misra, over the past six months, represented opposite poles in the judiciary that is beset with divisions and mistrust.

Six months ago, Chelameswar and three other senior-most judges of the Supreme Court—Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph—held a press conference to voice their grievances about the manner in which Misra was administrating the court. Ever since, the judiciary has been making headlines, more for the schism within and the doubts about its independence, than for its judgments. The issues raised by the four judges—the alleged selective allocation of politically sensitive cases to handpicked benches and non-finalisation of Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of judges to the higher courts—were deduced as reflecting the feeling that independence of the judiciary was under threat from a strong government at the Centre.

While the mistrust among judges is a cause for concern, the larger issue is that of external forces influencing the judiciary’s functioning, which was implied in the complaint about selective allocation of cases. There has also been a full-blown confrontation between the judiciary and the government over appointments of judges to the higher courts. To make things worse, the court became a political battlefield for the Narendra Modi government and its political opponents.