DNA Edit: Crisis of CJI’s making

The genesis of the unprecedented act of rebellion by four senior Supreme Court justices against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on Friday can be traced to the growing faultlines within the topmost echelon of the judiciary.

The battle of egos in November between Justice J Chelameswar and the CJI had turned into an unedifying public spectacle. The difference of opinions became such festering sores that they ended up compromising the health and credibility of the highest constitutional court of the country.

The dissenting voices of Justices Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph have strengthened the belief that the biggest threat to the judiciary comes from within, one that is nurtured by conflicting interests and power struggles.

It’s more than just a worrying sign for the apex court because a turmoil of this nature has far-reaching consequences that have a direct bearing on the future of Indian democracy. If the judiciary flounders in this manner, that too in full public view, it bears evidence of the fact that the rot afflicting the SC has the potential to erode the very foundations of this country, where the system of checks and balances, provided by the Constitution, has suddenly become vulnerable.

By bringing matters – that traditionally have been sorted behind closed doors – to the court of public opinion, the four justices, who were later supported by two more colleagues, have intensified the call for a greater transparency in the administrative functions of the SC.

The CJI, as the justices pointed out, “is only the first among equals – nothing more or nothing less” who has certain “well-settled and time-honoured conventions” to assist him in drawing up of benches and assigning cases. The manner in which Justice Misra apparently carried out this responsibility had sown the seeds of discord.

Even when the aggrieved justices tried to resolve the issue through discussion, it didn’t yield the desired outcome. Though the Friday upheaval had a stunning effect, it seemed to be the only recourse for the four legal luminaries since knocking on government’s doors would have attracted the criticism of compromising the autonomy of the judiciary.

If the CJI is overlooking his seniormost colleagues in assigning cases, it can be interpreted as favouritism or worse still, an attempt to influence the outcome of justice. What is evident now is that Justice Misra has failed to evolve a consensus with other justices regarding the administrative functions of the apex court.

It’s true that Friday’s press conference has dented the judiciary’s image among the citizens – judges in this country are awe-inspiring figures, held in highest esteem – but by expressing their anguish in public, the four justices have taken a moral stand that will, in due course, restore people’s faith in the justice system.

The CJI Dipak Misra can’t afford to remain silent; he has to effectively rebut the general impression that he is taking the institution down with him. While the government’s decision not to interfere in the “internal” matter of the judiciary is praiseworthy, it will have to push the judges to end the stalemate.

It is now up to the judiciary to bring an end to this internecine feud and restore order and equanimity in the citadel of justice. The show of defiance on Tuesday should not go down in history as a bad precedent. Instead, it should stimulate the institution to embrace reforms.