The Supreme Court stands at the apex of the hierarchy of administration of justice and is the sentinel for the protection of life and liberty of the millions of countrymen. The judiciary acts as the watch-dog of the Constitution. Independence of judiciary and fairness in judicial process is the hallmark of successful working of the democratic system of governance.
It depends largely on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. Therefore, a citizen craving for justice knocks at the door of the Supreme Court which is the last resort in our justice delivery system.
In this backdrop, very recently four senior most judges of the Supreme Court, Justice J Chelemeswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan V Lokur and Justice Curien Joseph came out openly by convening a Press conference that the Supreme Court of India is not in order and the style of functioning of the Supreme Court which is detrimental in the judicial process as result of which democracy is in peril. Such statement of four senior-most judges openly before the Press created a hue and cry in the country about the efficacy of our justice delivery system. Regarding this issue, there has been huge debate and discussion in the country in different spheres. The manner in which the judges of the Supreme Court conferred on the subject with the media making allegation against Chief Justice of India Justice Deepak Mishra is first of its kind in the anneals of history of judiciary in free India and it had never before happened on any occasion which was made by the four judges of the apex court so blatantly and openly, that too before the nation through media about the functioning of the Supreme Court and hearing of matters in different Benches and by individual judges of the court.
The allegation of the four senior most judges precisely is that for last one year or so, the Supreme Court is not functioning effectively on administrative side as it is supposed to be. They said that regarding distribution of cases to different Benches by the CJI, senior most judges are by-passed and cases are entrusted to relatively junior judges and their Benches. Their allegation is that regarding constitution of Benches, very important matters even where the interest of the nation is involved and in many sensitive cases, where there has been public outcry, such matters are given to junior judges or Benches as result of which justice delivery system is at a stake.
The four judges have alleged that regarding the style of functioning of the court on administrative side and distribution of business to different Benches, they brought this fact to the notice of the CJI very recently and even they submitted a 7- page written memorandum in this regard but there was total inaction on the part of the CJI. So finding no alternative, they had to bring these facts before the nation by meeting with the Press.
In this context, there was a great deal of controversy in the country. Even there was demand that the Prime Minister should intervene to settle such a grave issue facing the country. The Prime Minister consulted with the Law Minister and decided not to meddle into the matter as such an issue is the internal affair of the Supreme Court. It can be well said that the decision of the Prime Minister in this regard is a welcome step. The judiciary is independent and other two organs of the State, legislature and executive, should not be allowed to come in the domain of judiciary. These are also safeguards built in our constitutional set-up. Significantly, for settlement of cases and matters by an individual judge or by a particular Bench of the Supreme Court, it is always the prerogative and discretion of the CJI to pass orders accordingly. It is followed according to the rules and procedures of distribution of business traditionally. In any view of the matter, the present impasse and controversy raised by the four judges of the Supreme Court in such matters could have been easily settled by way of deliberation, mutual discussion, consultation with the CJI in the Supreme Court itself, before the full court, not by making it public before the media which has undoubtedly created a bad precedent, and an unhealthy trend in the justicing process in our country.
In this backdrop, it is worthwhile to mention that a PIL was filled before the Supreme Court regarding the death of special judge CBI late GB Loya under mysterious circumstances. It is alleged by the four judges that such a sensitive matter although was admitted by the Supreme Court was entrusted to junior judges heading the Bench. Significantly, CBI judge Loya was hearing the controversial Sekh Shorabuddin false encounter case where there is allegation of complicity of present BJP president Amit Shah and some senior police officers of the Gujarat Government. On the same analogy, recently a retired High Court judge IM Quddusi and his associates allegedly hatched a criminal conspiracy and collected huge amount of money as bribe from the management of a black listed private medical college of Utter Pradesh with a promise to get favorable order for them from the Supreme Court in a pending related case regarding grant of recognition to that black listed medical college. In view of such allegation, the CBI on his own information registered a case against justice Quidissi and others which is now pending investigation. Prasant Bhusan, a senior advocate of the Supreme Court, on this issue filed a petition before the court praying to constitute a special investigation team (SIT) for the purpose as the matter relates to serious allegation of collection of bribe by a retired High Court judge and the allegation is regarding influencing the judicial process in the Supreme Court in such case matter. Bhusan submitted before the court that for proper investigation of such an important matter by the CBI against judge and others which affects the judiciary and judicial process in the country, formation of SIT to probe into the matter is very much necessary. Four dissatisfied judges have said that the CJI instead of giving such an important matter to a Bench of senior judges, entrusted it to junior judges and the Bench of Justice RK Agarwal, Arun Mishra and M Khanwalkar dismissed the petition of Bhusan.
It is worthy of mention that such import matter was earlier heard by present dissatisfied Justice J Chelemeswar and justice S Abdul Nazeer who had passed orders for hearing of such matter by a constitution Bench of five judges. It is alleged by the four rebel judges that the CJI did not act accordingly and sent the matter for disposal to a Bench of junior judges.
Concluding, keeping in mind the sequence of events and the style of functioning of the Supreme Court even if the allegation of the four senior most judges of Supreme Court bears some semblance of truth in their version, such matter which comes within the purview of the Supreme Court could have been settled there and it should not have been laid before the media circle making it an public issue. Since the Supreme Court is the last step in the judicial process and administration of justice, it should not be allowed to be defiled by anybody whatsoever. Needless to say that for the independence and impartiality of judiciary, people of India which is the largest democracy of the world still repose confidence in judiciary to serve them with a sense of justice even-handedly.
(Prof Das is an ex-CBI Judge, who lives in Bhubaneswar)