New Delhi: Indira Jaisingh, a senior advocate at the Supreme Court of India, asked a hard-hitting question during the book launch of [In]Complete Justice? The Supreme Court at 75 at the India International Centre.
“Today, we have a dissent by the sole woman judge on the Supreme Court who said she disagreed with the decision taken by the majority of the collegium in appointing a junior judge,” said Jaisingh, referring to Justice Nagarathna submitting a dissenting note opposing Justice Pancholi’s elevation to the SC. “A majoritarian Hindutva government wants its own people in the judiciary. What have you judges done about it?”
The question, which received raucous applause in the packed auditorium, was posed to a panel that included the book’s editor, S Muralidhar, former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, and Abhay Oka, a former judge of the Supreme Court. They were joined by Gopal Guru, a former professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University and moderator Manisha Pande, managing editor of Newslaundry.
The book, a collection of essays and cartoons, discusses issues that define justice in the Supreme Court’s seventy-fifth year. Contributions by advocates, judges, legal scholars and one journalist, P Sainath, were celebrated by S Muralidhar, who took the time to thank each of them in his opening remarks.
Essay topics range from media freedom and judicial appointments to gender discrimination against women lawyers and judicial delay. Many of the contributors were present in the audience, including Sainath, Jaisingh, Madan Lokur, former judge of the Delhi High Court, Nitya Ramakrishnan, advocate, and Mohan Gopal, advocate and the former vice-chancellor of the National Law School of India, Bengaluru.
“Firstly, I am happy that I am not part of the collegium,” said Oka, in response to Jaisingh’s question, which prompted laughs from the audience. “You are justified in criticising why the dissent is not in the public domain.”
Oka went on to add that he is often asked why the deliberations and minutes of the collegium are not being made public.
“There are some resolutions of the Supreme Court recommending High Court judges—even the income of that lawyer for the last three years is part of the resolution. So, we have to balance transparency with privacy,” he said.
Also read: ‘Urdu will survive hate, needs jobs to thrive’ — lessons from Rakhshanda Jalil’s book launch
A rushed court
In his opening statement, Muralidhar, now a senior advocate at the top court, spoke of how, in the 75 years of its existence, the Supreme Court has built a “massive trove of institutional memory”. This was done through both written judgments and orders, as well as the memories of academics, lawyers, students and litigants.
“These essays speak of the potential of the court to do complete justice at times and the constraints of the law and procedure that do not enable it to do so at other times,” said Muralidhar, before introducing a set of cartoons littered throughout the book. “With a few strokes of the pen, these cartoonists have been able to capture what the judicial institutions are today.”
The cartoons, all a commentary on the judicial system, were done by artists including Sandeep Adhwaryu, Satish Acharya, Rachita Taneja and Manjul.
One of Manjul’s cartoons of Umar Khalid in jail wearing a t-shirt with the words ‘1500 days and counting’ received appreciative murmurs from the crowd. In a text box, the artist has written ‘Seen four Chief Justices; yet to see justice’.
Muralidhar also reflected on what has changed in the Supreme Court over his time as both a lawyer and judge. He listed out a litany of changes—hybrid hearings, paperless courts, live tweeting.
“It’s a more rushed court. It’s more chaotic,” he said.
But his remarks on what has not changed—the ushers—received laughs from the audience. The ones who come in and warn you that the judge is about to come. They often carry a pen or a pair of spectacles belonging to that judge, so you know he isn’t far behind.
“I’ve often wondered if this vision of the Supreme Court were to be narrated by the ushers, how much more interesting that might be,” said Muralidhar, who then recounted a conversation with an usher of a former Chief Justice of India.
“He told us that the flask for the judge was not hot water, but a spirit of a different kind to keep His Lordship happy.”
Also read: Delhi senior citizens relive Bollywood mothers’ legacy—Leela Mishra to Achala Sachdev
Shortcomings of the court
During the panel discussion, moderator Manisha Pande opened with a cartoon by Rachita Taneja depicting poor representation of women, Dalits and other minorities as Supreme Court judges.
She went on to say that the average citizen sees the court as the last bastion of hope. “You have a situation where a common person looks up to the Supreme Court and says, ‘You come through for us’,” said Pande, explaining that the public has lost trust in both the government and the media.
“How fair is that burden, when the Supreme Court itself is grappling with issues that plague our society?”
Oka acknowledged that the book did bring up several shortcomings of the top court and the poor conditions of lower courts as well.
“I have gone on record that the biggest mistake we made is neglecting our trial judiciary,” said Oka, highlighting an essay in the book by S Ravindra Bhatt, a former judge of the Supreme Court.
But his biggest concern right now is the number of cases filed in the Supreme Court. He asked where the time was for ‘application of mind’.
“If you are going to spend six hours every day reading cases and at the end of the day correcting orders, where is the time to deliver judgments,” he said. And that’s the battle that the Supreme Court faces.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)