The new Chief Justice of India (CJI), DY Chandrachud has assumed office at a pivotal moment in public affairs. Barely a week ago, Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju spoke out against an “opaque” system of judicial appointments, and said the judiciary should remain outside the purview of the executive. This frames the CJI’s challenge. True, a tussle between the judiciary and the executive is hardly new. But our history tells us that a powerful government, backed by a huge mandate, constrains judicial independence, even trampling on democratic values and civil rights. At this juncture, when principled disagreement is often seen as an act of bad faith and draconian anti-terror laws are used to crush protests and protesters, an independent judiciary is needed to protect our rights and Even more is needed. This is why the judiciary is right to insulate itself from executive influence. In many ways, the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision to strike down the National Judicial Appointments Commission as unconstitutional (and uphold its collegium) was meant to protect this autonomy. But, as we have seen since then, what has weakened the judiciary is its own shortcomings. They need to be fixed.
Take, for example, the top court’s case-listing process, which led to four judges airing their complaints in a shocking press conference in 2018. Since the law is common and who handles what should be irrelevant, it was readily apparent that all was not well. Furthermore, while electoral democracy has helped disadvantaged groups seize political power and advance, the lack of diversity in the ranks of our judiciary invites criticism that it remains the voice of an upper-caste male elite. Legal challenges to affirmative action in the past and this week’s judicial approval of quotas for economically weaker sections among ‘ordinary’ applicants for jobs and educational seats can be seen as a product of this disparity. It is heartening that the new CJI has not dismissed criticism of the working of the judiciary. In an interview to The Indian Express, he said, “The best way to deal with criticism is to act in a way that is more conducive to the various criticisms of the working of the collegium.” While he acknowledged that there is transparency in judicial appointments. Public interest, he said, must be balanced with the need to protect the credibility of the justice system. As independent arbitrators, judges should be seen as above ground. He argued that an open scrutiny of candidates could put the reputation of lawyers at risk and the High Court judges under consideration and prevent them from proceeding. Fair enough. Nevertheless, given that important matters of public policy come to court, our Apex Court should not be treated as a closed club.
CJI Chandrachud himself as a judge has done much to interpret the Constitution in a way that extends our freedoms, be it about sexual relations or privacy as a fundamental right. He takes charge of an apex court that until recently seemed reluctant to take up important issues of constitutional propriety: the scrapping of Article 370, for example, or our amended citizenship law. While the Center complains of collegium ambiguity, its unexplained reservation on some judicial appointments has cast a shadow over judges’ careers. Rijiju’s comment is not likely to be the last on this. It is the job of the CJI to look within and push for greater openness without succumbing to populist pressures. This is the best way for the judiciary to keep a watch on our side against the violation of basic guarantees.
catch all business News, market news, today’s fresh news events and breaking news Update on Live Mint. download mint news app To get daily market updates.