Such desperately low politics also highlights the difficult choice people disillusioned by the present regime face in the next election.
There are moments in life when the full implication of our action is realised only after it is taken.
The motion by the ‘grand old’ Congress party and a rag-tag group of other political parties to impeach Chief Justice of India had been under discussion for some time.
One would have thought that the eminent lawyers in the ranks of the Congress would have reasoned with their political colleagues against such a misadventure. Not for the sake of the fame and fortune they earn from the institution, but for knowing better what is what in judiciary. The two fields are poles apart, and require different talents.
A great statesman like Jawaharlal Nehru could never make a cut in the practice of law like the illustrious Motilal — a legendary lawyer. On the other hand, most respectable lawyers have shown poor political judgment.
For all the critical tension between lawyers and judges in our unique business of disagreements, it is not at all possible to agree with the impeachment motion because the charges framed are absolutely bogus.
Without basis
For instance, the opposition has cited the handling of “sensitive matters”, but how does one define them? Is a sensitive matter one that garners media hype, or does it depend on the personalities involved, the monetary stakes, public importance, fees charged by lawyers, or some other fanciful yardstick?
Every matter is sensitive for one or the other reason, more so from the perspective of the litigant concerned.
Secondly, which are the “select benches” referred to in the allegation about the arbitrary assignment of matters? If the allegation has merit, the benches must be named, along with the cases they decided; those judgments would have to be recalled, and the judges in those benches impeached. After all, how can the collaborators be left out?
The other charges are based on unsubstantiated hearsay. But who is interested in details in the arena of high politics?
Despite the denials in the media, there appears to be a link between the judgment in the judge Loya case and the effort to prevent cases like the Ayodhya dispute from being heard. All these cases evoke polarised debate.
If you accept the assertion that these cases are not the motive, the only remaining purpose of the motion would seem to be to register disapproval and cause embarrassment. For this, do we need this kind of a highly publicised bid for impeachment, considering the damaging public discourse it generates that further aggravates the crisis of credibility?
A dangerous precedent
The Vice-President has rightly rejected the roster charge as an “internal matter to be resolved by the Supreme Court itself”. For other charges, he has said, there is no “concrete and verifiable imputation” to indicate any “misbehaviour” or “incapacity”. As a result, those who propounded this move are caught in their own trap. It is too late for them to back out, so they intend to seek a judicial review. However, the motion is doomed to fail in all the subsequent stages with more strictures.
Even so, a doomed motion like this still sets a dangerous precedent.
What if the executive used this motion as a bargaining chip against the Chief Justice of India to have the Ayodhya case or some other matter decided in a certain way?
This politically ill-thought-out move raises questions about the maturity and wisdom of the Congress leadership. Such desperately low politics highlights the difficult choice people disillusioned by the present regime face in the next election.
It is not possible to take a stand against this mindless motion without being seen as a sympathiser of the BJP government. In fact, the ruling party has been in a longer and more lethal confrontation with the Chief Justice of India and the judiciary. They have blocked judicial appointments generally and inconvenient judges vindictively.
Attempts to control the judiciary sound like a natural call for a government winning election after election to pursue Hindutva and other agendas. They may not see the need for an independent judiciary, and possibly find constitutional processes irksome. For the government, this motion came as a God-sent red herring to divert attention from the real threat to the judiciary’s independence.
One unintended effect of public interest litigations or PILs has been a kind of competition among judges for their share of glory for doing public good. Not at all a questionable motive, but this power and pyaar ke side effects have generated a lot of internal tension, jealousies and the pursuit of non-corrupt personal agendas.
The average tenure of three to six or seven years in the top court creates anxiety among judges to leave behind a legacy of great judgments on issues of the moment.
With a team leader who may want to do so much more, a storm has taken root within the judiciary. However, individual heroism is too transitory to justify a divided house. The institution is bigger and more important than all the present actors. Deep introspection is needed to tackle this self-invited attack from the outside.
The optimists still hope that, after this passing tumult, everyone will raise the ‘bar’, and pray that God does not save the last word for pessimists.
Pallav Shishodia is a senior advocate.
First of all it’s not impeachment but removal of a SC judge, here it happens to be the cji.rraj