Congress con­cedes de­feat in CJI Re­moval Case

The en­tire process of im­peach­ment and this pe­ti­tion were mainly due to the 12 Jan­uary 2018 Press Con­fer­ence of Jus­tice Che­lamesh­war and other Judges of the Supreme Court.

Alive - - Contents - by C.K Subra­ma­niam

Ask­ing the Con­sti­tu­tional bench, its ‘Authority’ is like a com­plainant be­fore a po­lice of­fi­cer, ask­ing him to pro­duce his ap­point­ment or­der for lodg­ing his com­plaint. It is now very clear that if judges are ea­ger to face and pro­mote him­self be­fore me­dia they should have re­signed and joined the pol­i­tics. Congress wanted to dam­age ju­di­ciary trust and sought for success. But the Na­tional party will have to with­draw the case be­cause they did not get the judge they wanted, whom they back to cause dis­sen­sion in public. It was in­deed a shame­ful ac­tion try­ing to de­stroy ev­ery­thing that is demo­cratic and only wanted show off by the dy­nasty fam­ily.

It was all Topsy turvy in ju­di­cial sys­tem. With all re­spect to Supreme Court, with all this fi­asco the re­spect for Supreme Court and its judges has been lost. Judges voic­ing con­cern in public, politi­cians air­ing views on judges in public and lawyers tak­ing sides with judges we do not know where are we head­ing in this coun­try. With­drawal of the pe­ti­tion even at this late stage is wel­come. But, dam­age has al­ready been done. The cred­i­bil­ity of the in­sti­tu­tion suf­fered a se­vere blow. All par­ties to the trou­ble should make an in­tro­spec­tion and re­store dig­nity and deco­rum of the in­sti­tu­tion.

The peo­ple’s rep­re­sen­ta­tives be­long­ing to any po­lit­i­cal party must start think­ing how best they can serve the na­tion in a de­cent way. The op­po­si­tion par­ties and rul­ing party in­volve in crit­i­cism against each other and do noth­ing and this trend is not good at all. Let th­ese so called rep­re­sen­ta­tives both at Cen­tre and States do some deep think­ing in this re­gard.

The fact of the mat­ter is both the CJI and the other top Five judges can­not hear the case. Though the case is against the CJI, the en­tire process of im­peach­ment and this pe­ti­tion were mainly due to the 12 Jan­uary 2018 Press Con­fer­ence of Jus­tice Che­lamesh­war and others. Un­der the cir­cum­stances only the next five se­nior judges alone can hear the case. There is noth­ing wrong in re­fer­ring the mat­ter be­fore the Bench headed by Jus­tice Sikri.

Hav­ing filed the pe­ti­tion the Congress lawyer should have ar­gued the mat­ter be­fore the Bench headed by Jus­tice Sikri. By with­draw­ing the pe­ti­tion they have done more dis­ser­vice to Jus­tice Che­lamesh­war and other

se­nior judges. Need­less to say, the im­age of the CJI and Supreme Court were al­ready tar­nished by th­ese peo­ple.

At last good sense pre­vailed. Let the Congress lead­ers at all lev­els know what is to be taken up with Gov­ern­ment or any other fo­rum. The op­po­si­tion par­ties are not get­ting any sym­pa­thy from the gen­eral public be­cause of their fal­la­cies. Th­ese par­ties lev­el­ling charges against rul­ing party and rul­ing party lev­el­ling charges against op­po­si­tion has be­come a rou­tine. The news and so­cial me­dia also not re­li­able as they are much in­ter­ested in their rat­ings.

We have heard of mis­car­riage of jus­tice. We have heard lit­i­gants go­ing be­fore a par­tic­u­lar bench or judge. But choos­ing the judge to hear the pe­ti­tion against him­self/her­self is unimag­in­able and surely against the hallowed prin­ci­ples of nat­u­ral jus­tice. In the Con­sti­tu­tion of a con­sti­tu­tional bench, ap­pli­ca­tion of mind is seen. Is it right and proper to stick to pro­ce­dures when the very hon­our and in­tegrity of the in­sti­tu­tion is be­ing ques­tioned? Pos­i­tively, a con­sti­tu­tional of­fice is above the per­son that comes to hold it. For we are a repub­lic. The in­vis­i­ble king is the unseen ci­ti­zen that votes.

Direc­tion­less pol­i­tics

The irony of In­dian pol­i­tics, op­po­si­tion par­ties are direc­tion­less rais­ing fruit­less is­sues in coun­tries cen­ter stage. Rather they would have to raise their voice for in­clu­sive growth of In­di­ans. They are killing the value of our pol­i­tics. In fact they would have to pre­pare the road map for our cit­i­zens. But it is sorry to say that they are fight­ing just like cor­po­rate com­pa­nies to sell their prod­ucts. Now the peo­ple of In­dia is much awaken, as they have sig­nif­i­cantly de­vel­oped the new ideas whereas the politi­cians are still be­hav­ing in feu­dal era. They are killing the real spirit of democ­racy.

Cit­i­zens wish that role of ju­di­ciary should never be politi­cised and in fu­ture no sit­u­a­tion arises when im­peach­ment of Chief Jus­tice of In­dia has to be thought of. Let the MPs first at­tend Par­lia­ment, do their job for which they were elected in­stead of fight­ing with gov­ern­ment, ju­di­ciary and every­body on the way. The Congress knew that it did not have the num­bers in the con­sti­tu­tional bench formed to look into their case.

The saga con­tin­ues, with noth­ing sub­stan­tive get­ting re­solved to re­store Peo­ple’s trust in the work­ings of the court. Just more ques­tions be­ing raised. What is heart­en­ing to note is that both sides are re­ly­ing on the in­tegrity of the Con­sti­tu­tion to sup­port their in­di­vid­ual po­si­tions. What is dis­heart­en­ing to note, how­ever, is that the rep­u­ta­tion of the in­sti­tu­tion, which is based on public trust, has been mauled badly. The en­tire episode val­i­dates the be­lief so en­shrined in the Con­sti­tu­tion that politi­cians must stay away from med­dling in the af­fairs of the courts, and that the judges too must keep their noses clean. Cur­rent out­comes speak for them­selves.

For the cit­i­zens, it must be­come clear that they ac­tu­ally own the Con­sti­tu­tion, and that they have a re­spon­si­bil­ity to think through the spirit of the Con­sti­tu­tion and de­fend its’ in­tegrity, while re­frain­ing from sup­port­ing par­ti­san pol­i­tics that ad­versely af­fect the foun­da­tion of the coun­try.

We have heard of mis­car­riage of jus­tice. We have heard lit­i­gants go­ing be­fore a par­tic­u­lar bench or judge. But choos­ing the judge to hear the pe­ti­tion against him­self/her­self is unimag­in­able and surely against the hallowed prin­ci­ples of nat­u­ral jus­tice. In the Con­sti­tu­tion of a con­sti­tu­tional bench, ap­pli­ca­tion of mind is seen. Is it right and proper to stick to pro­ce­dures when the very hon­our and in­tegrity of the in­sti­tu­tion is be­ing ques­tioned?

Such in­ci­dents tar­nish the im­age of Supreme Court.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.