Four senior judges of the Supreme Court spill the beans
They announced the demise of the Justice System of India when four senior judges of the Supreme Court, Justices Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, held a dramatic and unprecedented press conference on Friday, the 12th of January 2018. In the press conference, the judges publicly made serious allegations against the Chief Justice of India. They talked about a letter that they had written to the Chief Justice of India, which according to them, didn’t get the appropriate response.
Here’s the full text of the letter:
Dear Chief Justice,
It is with great anguish and concern that we have thought it proper to address this letter to you so as to highlight certain judicial orders passed by this Court which has adversely affected the overall functioning of the justice delivery system and the independence of the High Courts besides impacting the administrative functioning of the Office of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.
From the date of establishment of three chartered High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, certain traditions and conventions in the judicial administration have been well established. The traditions were embraced by this Court which came into existence almost a century after the above mentioned chartered High Courts. These traditions have their roots in the anglo saxon jurisprudence and practice.
One of the well settled principles is that the chief justice is the master of the roster with the privilege to determine the roster, necessity in multi-numbered courts for an orderly transaction of business and appropriate arrangements with respect to matters with which member/bench of this court (as the case may be) is required to deal with which case or class of cases is to be made. The convention of recognising the privilege of the chief justice to form the roster and assign cases to different members/benches of the court is a convention designed for a disciplined and efficient transaction of business of the court but not a recognition of any superior authority, legal or factual, of the chief justice over his colleagues. It is too well settled in the jurisprudence of this country that the chief justice is only the first amongst equals — nothing more or nothing less. In the matter of the determination of the roster there are well-settled and time-honoured conventions guiding the chief justice, be the conventions dealing with the strength of the bench which is required to deal with a particular case or the composition thereof.
A necessary corollary to the above mentioned principle is that any multi numbered judicial body including this Court will not arrogate to themselves the authority to deal with and pronounce upon matters which ought to be heard by appropriate benches, both composition wise and strength wise with due regard to the roster fixed.
Any departure from the above two rules would not only lead to unpleasant and undesirable consequences of creating doubt in the body politic about the integrity of the institution. Not to talk about the chaos that would result from such departure.
We are sorry to say that off late the twin rules mentioned above have not been adhered to. There have been instances where case having far reaching consequences for the Nation and the institution had been assigned by the chief justices of the court selectively to the benches “of their preference” without any rationale basis for such assignment. This must be guarded against at all costs.
We are not mentioning details only to avoid embarrassing the institution but note that such departures have already damaged the image of this institution to some extent.
In the above context we deem it proper to address you presently with regard to the Order dated 27th October, 2017 in R.P. Luthra vs. Union of India to the effect that there should be no further delay in finalizing the Memorandum of Procedure in the larger public interest. When the Memorandum of Procedure was the subject matter of a decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Anr. vs. Union of India [ (2016) 5 SCC 1] it is difficult to understand as to how any other Bench could have dealt with the matter.
The above apart, subsequent to the decision of the Constitution Bench, detailed discussions were held by the Collegium of five judges (including yourself) and the Memorandum of Procedure was finalized and sent by the then Hon’ble the Chief justice of India to the government of India in March 2017. The Government of India has not responded to the communication and in view of this silence, it must be taken that the Memorandum of Procedure as finalized by the Collegium has been accepted by the Government of India on the basis of the order of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record-Association (Supra). There was, therefore, no occasion for the Bench to make any observation with regard to the finalization of the Memorandum of Procedure or that that issue cannot linger on for an indefinite period.
On 4th July, 2017, a Bench of seven Judges of this Court decided InRe, Hon’ble Shre Justice C.S. Karnan (2017) 1SCC 1]. In that decision (refer to in R.P.Luthra), two of us observed that there is a need to revisit the process of appointment of judges and to set up a mechanism for corrective measures other than impeachment. No observation was made by any of the seven learned judges with regard to the Memorandum of Procedure.
Any issue with regard to the Memorandum of Procedure should be discussed in the Chief Justices’ Conference and by the Full Court. Such a matter of grave importance, if a all required t be taken on the judicial side, should be dealt with by none other than a Constitution Bench.
The above development must be viewed with serious concern. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India is duty bound to rectify the situation and take appropriate remedial measures after a full discussion with the other members of the Collegium and at a later state, if required, with other Hon’ble Judges of this Court.
Once the issue arising from the order dated 27th October, 2017 in R.P.Luthra vs. Union of India, mentioned above, is adequately addressed by you and if it becomes so necessary, we will apprise you specifically of the other judicial orders passed by this Court which would require to be similarly dealt with.
With kind regards
- (Ranjan Gogoi)
- (Madan B. Lokur)
- (Kurian Joseph)
Why I call it the obituary of Justice System of the country?
The four judges inadvertently admitted that cases in the highest court of the land are decided not on merit but according to political and/or ideological affiliations of the judges sitting on the bench. Why on earth otherwise should there be so much hue and cry over the constitution of benches? All cases are supposed to be heard on facts and law without any external influences including the personal likings and preferences of the judge concerned. How does it matter which judge hears which case? All judges of the Supreme Court are eminently capable and experienced men with impeccable integrity. That is why they are judges of the highest court. How can assigning cases to any judge of Supreme Court pose a threat to democracy? That there is so much scramble for a place on some benches tells us that judges are not doing justice; they are lobbying for their preferred causes.
Now questions to Justice Chelameswar & Colleagues?
The first question: Supposing you have a genuine dispute with the CJI, whom do you want to decide the dispute? The man on the street? Bar? Politicians? TV Channels? Is any of them capable of deciding dispute between the highest judiciary? If not, what is your purpose in calling the press conference?
The second question: Have you given a thought to what kind of precedence you are setting? What will be the fate of Justice Delivery System if taking a cue, judges of the numerous high courts in India take to the press, whenever they don’t find them on the benches they like to be on?
The third question: Even while you rightly admit the well settled principles that the chief justice is the master of the roster, you question his authority in the next breath and level unsubstantiated allegations. Why? Are you aware of another maxim of law that JUDGES MUST NOT BE HEARD OUTSIDE THE COURT ROOM? I am sure you would have heard of this maxim in your long illustrious careers. Are you aware of the dangers of not following this maxim?
The fourth question: Do you seriously believe your bringing the inter-judges bickering to the streets will bolster the ever falling confidence of the people in the Justice Delivery System?
The fifth question: How do you counter the charge that your press conference was in furtherance to a conspiracy with the opposition parties? Well I must specify the grounds on which I hold it to be a conspiracy.
Why this is a conspiracy with the opposition parties?
Admittedly, the flashpoint is the Judge Loya PIL. A judge died in a heart attack. A PIL is filed. There are no rewards for guessing that the PIL was filed to insinuate the president of the ruling party. Why was it so important for you to be on the bench hearing it? Why giving it to another Judge was dishonest?
You had undue interest in hearing a PIL filed to insinuate the president of the ruling party. Then you are in truck with a leading politician of an opposition party. Why?
One of you is a close friend of a communist party leader. Another one of you is son of a former Chief Minister of Congress party.
Your undue interest in a case seeking to insinuate a ruling party president, your links with opposition parties, your meeting with opposition politician after the press conference and the opposition parties supporting you in chorus are substantial grounds to suspect a conspiracy.
How the damage done be controlled?
All judges of the Supreme Court should sit together and resolve the dispute. And there should be a message to all judges not to follow this bad precedent.
RP Arora is Delhi Based Senior Lawyer. Further, you can write to him at ‘email@example.com’
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of jansatyagrah.in. You may have dissent with the author's opinions which can be raisedby writing to us and author.