CJI Thakur's tears: should judiciary show weakness to the govt?

Thakur's tearful outburst assumes significance because of the fact that in October 2015, a majority of the Supreme Court itself quashed the government's proposed National Judicial Accountability Bill. Subsequently, in November 2015, the apex court left the issue of appointment of judges in the hands of the Executive. 

Crocodile tears?

For far too long, a shortage of judges has been termed as one of the principal problems plaguing the justice delivery system. However, contrary to public perception, that is not the case.

The main problem lies with the judiciary's ideological leanings, as documented in the edited volume "Shifting Scales of Justice: The Supreme Court in Neoliberal India"(Orient Blackswan; 2013).

In fact, as recently as 12 January this year, a bench headed by CJI Thakur demanded an explanation from activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan - that he and his organisation CPIL (Centre for Public Interest Litigation) is not indulging in 'proxy litigation' - that is, filing cases at the clandestine behest of other parties.

Read: Will judges ever be accountable? Govt's new Bill ensures they won't

CJI Thakur's arrow of suspicion comes at a time when the Supreme Court itself gave birth to the PIL, most probably, as legal scholar Upendra Baxi says, as an act of atonement for its sins in succumbing to the Executive's pressure during the Emergency.

Therefore, when the judiciary itself has resisted all efforts at accountability, what is CJI Thakur complaining about?

Why judicial anguish?

Sure, the government, even if it's being run by the much-vaunted speedster Narendra Modi, has been tardy in its efforts in appointing judges to the high courts and the Supreme Court.

But then, the apex court had itself ruled that the Memorandum of Procedure for appointing judges should be drafted and implemented by the government, which is presently being done by a Group of Ministers (GoM) headed by Sushma Swaraj, the Minister for External Affairs.

That GoM has decided to include 'merit and integrity' as a criterion, which hasn't gone down too well with the judiciary, whose integrity has come under a cloud of suspicion from time to time. 

The real problem

On his part, Thakur says his crying was only an 'emotional appeal' meant to goad the Executive into action.

But the crux of the matter is about entrenched judicial biases and prejudices, which rob many citizens of their most basic and fundamental rights.

Also read- 'Landmark' or 'unconstitutional': reading the SC verdict on NJAC Act

There have been instances where the apex court has termed pavement dwellers as 'beastly' beings, or condemned a man to death just to 'satisfy the collective conscience of society'.

Just appointing more judges does not ever translate into greater access to justice for the people. The entrenched and structural flaws in the justice-delivery system need to be weeded out first.

The next time CJI Thakur thinks about deploying a tactical ploy, he might do better to introspect.

Edited by Shreyas Sharma

More in Catch:

Valar Morghulis. Even Game of Thrones will die

2006 Malegaon blast: All 9 accused acquitted by Mumbai Court

On World Malaria Day, there still isn't much to cheer about

Counting Stars: BJP bets on Suresh Gopi to garner Nair support in Kerala