“To beguile the time, look like the time…Look like the innocent flower.” So advised Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth to her husband as they plotted to murder King Duncan. What she meant was: deception is the name of the game.
Politicians the world over practice this day in and day out. They are quite at home saying one thing and meaning, and doing, the opposite. Election time is the best to watch them in action. Folded hands or outstretched arms are their stock-in-trade. But once the votes are cast, they undergo a sea change. Over the years the electorate has also got used to this and has developed a trick or two of its own, rotten eggs being one of the most easily accessible missiles at its command.
For a politician it’s just another day at the office though. He will simply wipe the egg off his face and march on. But can the judiciary, that too the highest in the land, live down such things? Of course, there is nothing conspiratorial or sinister in what the four learned judges of India’s Supreme Court had to say last week about the goings on within their august institution and they must have sincerely meant every word they said. But the very fact that they went to the people’s court with their grievances is in the realm of politics and therein lies the grave, irreparable mistake.
Judges Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph, the four most senior judges after the Chief Justice himself, jointly called a press conference to complain they were being sidestepped in the allocation of important cases. The judges also expressed deep anguish that Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra was also not taking their advice on the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) by which judges to the higher courts are to be appointed. The four, together with Justice Misra, form the Supreme Court collegium which formulated the MoP, which is a guideline for appointment of judges to the high courts and the Supreme Court.
The four judges also released to the press a letter they had written to Misra almost two months ago detailing their gripes. Never in the history of independent India has the country witnessed such a revolt and the foremost reaction from every quarter was one of shock, disbelief and distress.
Speaking for the four, Justice Chelameswar said: “We were left with no choice than to communicate it to the nation (that) less than desirable things have happened” in the Supreme Court. “We tried to collectively persuade the Chief Justice that certain things are not in order…he must take remedial measures, but our efforts failed.”
Anyone who has worked in any large office long enough will know there are always ‘less than desirable’ things happening at work. It could be favouritism by the boss, unbearable workload, salary related issues so on and so forth. Oftentimes these sort themselves out, at other times employees go on strike to get their grievances redressed. And if you are alone you either grin and bear it or put in your papers. These are facts of life. These are daily occurrences in a democracy and except when such protests take a violent turn, not much attention is paid.
But can the same yardstick be applied to the judiciary, even if the declared aim is something higher? If yes, how can it sit in judgment of the ordinary person?
To designate the Chief Justice as ‘boss’ may be a misnomer since he is only “first among equals” as per hierarchical roll call. This fact was emphasised by the four judges too. In short the concept of ‘senior’ and ‘junior’ is only a matter of procedure and convenience as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. And if that were so, the argument that important cases are being assigned to ‘junior’ judges should also not hold much water. 
The Times of India reported that at least 15 major cases with serious political ramifications had been assigned to ‘junior’ judges in the past 20 years, meaning Justice Misra had not done anything out of the ordinary. The paper cited cases such as Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, Bofors, Best Bakery, Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter, Spectrum and coal scam cases and the Vijay Mallya case.
Because politics has become such a dirty word over the years, two of the four pillars of democracy, the legislature and the executive, have come to be viewed with a certain degree of contempt and scepticism by the common man. A free press is supposed to be the fourth main pillar but that too has fallen on bad days thanks to corporatisation on the one hand and left liberals on the other. That left the judiciary as the sole protector and preserver of democracy in the country. 
It is, of course, absurd to impute any extraordinary wisdom to judges, even of the highest courts. All of them are normal humans with most human failings. At best they have two claims to put them in those high chairs – knowledge of the law and integrity. Oftentimes these are also called to question.
Kapil Sibal, former minister and senior advocate who has seen scores of judges in the Supreme Court come and go, writes: “For the discerning lawyer, the nature of the constitution of the bench in a particular matter often determines its outcome. As professionals in court day in and day out, we get to know our judges, not personally, but in the manner they approach issues.” What Sibal suggests is that judges are often predisposed to cases before them. So the integrity and knowledge of law could well be clouded by personal views or even prejudices. So much for justice!
Justice Joseph, who did not speak at the press conference, later told The Indian Express that “there is no need for outside interference because it is a matter (that) occurred within an institution. Necessary steps would be taken by the institution itself to sort it out.” Pray, if it were that simple, why create such a drama in the first place?
Justice Gogoi, who is next in line to become the Chief Justice, also came out with his own interpretation of the drama. He says “there is no crisis” in the judiciary. Oh! okay, so it was indeed drama for the entertainment of the whole nation. 
Reports at the time of writing said the rebel judges had tea with the CJI and the matter has been amicably resolved. So are we to believe it was just a matter that could have been solved over a cup of tea? If so, the natural question, silly though, is: was the CJI so miserly that he would not stand his brother judges even a cup of tea?
Courts have often barred the media from reporting certain things, so it is indeed curious that the four top judges in the country should take recourse to the media to air their grievances. ‘Outside interference’, as Justice Joseph said, is not possible because these judges are their own bosses. Once sworn in, not even the President of India can interfere. Only parliament has the authority to punish through impeachment which, of course, is beyond question in the present case.
But the damage has been done regardless of whether the rebels kissed and made up with the CJI or not. It can never be business as usual as long as the present set of judges remains in office.
Politicians, lawyers, journalists and the intelligentsia have all been divided down the middle – those who say a shock treatment was necessary and those who maintain that the image of Indian judiciary will never be the same again. But one thing is for sure; these four judges, who have had brilliant careers all through their lives, will forever be branded ‘rebels’. Not exactly the kind of embellishment for someone so exalted. It’s not going to be easy to wipe that egg off their faces.
Related Story