‘Govt not tolerant of judicial assertion’
Given the mindset of this government, that would have been a much worse model. have this situation. That is even worse. Even after a public controversy, the judiciary becoming openly criticised; there is no resolution. You must give credence to those who came out publicly. No member of the judiciary at this level takes this extreme step unless there is an absolute roadblock. The bottom line is that judges within the system feel the system is not being run in a manner which upholds the integrity and independence of the judiciary. where can that order be challenged - nowhere? So that will be the only order in the Constitution which cannot be challenged. Orders of the PMO (prime minister’s office), Cabinet, any other institution, can be challenged, but not an administrative order of the CJI. So that would be an exception. Where is this exception in the Constitution? It is inconsistent with the rule of law. How can an administrative order not find an avenue of challenge? There must be recourse. I don’t want to comment on the merits. It would not be fair. If these allegations are correct, this requires a resolution. And the resolution should evolve from a full-court meeting through a corrective mechanism on the master of the roster issue. That is the structural reform which is required. We are not living at a time when the king’s word was absolute. There is no fault line. It is not an Opposition versus CJI issue. It is not a political issue. Not a single allegation in that is politically motivated. It relates to matters pending in court, decisions in court, cases allocated in court. Only the process is political. It is not a matter of credit or discredit. Was I the one who instigated the judges to air their angst? Was I the one who instigated proceedings in court which resulted in the orders being passed? There are certain things that happened in court; within the system, people expressed extreme frustration. It has nothing to do with me or any party. Give me another solution. Under the Constitution, there is no other solution. You can say lump it or let sleeping dogs lie. But when the problem impacts the independence of the judiciary, you have to find a solution. So, you are saying, unless you have the numbers, you should not file a motion for removal. Does that make sense? See, it would have been good for the system if a committee was formed, and the judge’s name was cleared. We don’t want any doubts to remain. If it were to do with verdicts, you are right. But who has challenged the verdicts? Let’s answer Loya. The motion was signed a month in advance – did we know the Loya verdict would come on the 19th (of April)? No. We sought time from the RS (Rajya Sabha) chairman’s office a week in advance. We were told he has no time till the 20th. As far as Ram Janmabhoomi is concerned, has anyone asked for adjournment? No. The matter is on. The Chief Justice is giving date after date. There is no verdict in the case. All institutions must evolve. No institution is perfect; no men are perfect. We are in the midst of a serious fault line, and it must be seriously corrected. The most significant thing that has happened is that this serious fault line is before the public.
Yes. It will be corrected. The judiciary will rise to the occasion. The judiciary’s independence must be preserved and protected zealously. The Congress will ensure it is done. The judiciary, too, must preserve and protect its own independence. The way the collegium has functioned has much to be desired. It needs a revamp; but the judiciary should do it on its own. They must come up with answers. The present system has not functioned as it ought to, just like executive appointments were not beyond criticism.