PRESSURES ON JUDGES
Justice Kurian Joseph’s disclosures immediately after retirement touch upon the integrity and independence of judges of the Supreme Court.
A.G. NOORANI
THE Bar, the media and the public have been remiss in neglecting to notice the very grave implications of the remarks, made in successive press interviews, by Justice Kurian Joseph immediately after retiring as judge of the Supreme Court. He rendered high service by speaking as he did. It is unfortunate that the response has been a poor one. His statements touch upon the integrity and independence of judges of the Supreme Court.
On December 2, 2018, he referred to “starkly perceptible signs of influence with regard to allocation of cases to different benches selectively, to select judges who were perceived to be politically biased ”( The Times of India, December 3, 2018; emphasis added, throughout). Two points deserve note: one concerns the retired Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra; the other is his assignment of cases “selectively to select judges who were perceived to be politically biased”.
The next day, he repeated both points. “We made it clear to Justice Misra that the decisions that he was taking don’t seem to be independent. There was no positive response at all to what we told him or asked him. He kept allotting cases selectively to selective judges with political bias ”( Hindustan Times, December 4, 2018). Who were they? We need to know.
Mark his precision of language—“allocation of cases... selectively to select judges who were perceived to be politically biased”. This was repeated the next day. “He kept allotting cases selectively to selective judges with political bias.” It is unfair to pick on anyone at random. But it is right and proper to ask why Justices Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.M. Khanwilkar who sat with CJI Dipak Misra for long did not recuse themselves. They knew that the CJI was under a cloud, knew