Independence of Judiciary

This Institute, as your Director has explained, has been established primarily with the objective of promoting and conducting legal research but it has also undertaken a teaching programme in three Diploma Courses— Administrative Law, Corporate Laws and Secretarial Practice and Labour Law — and conducts examinations in each course. The main objective in conducting these courses and holding examinations is to make the participants familiar with the particular branch of law and to create an awareness in them that the legal rules, not merely solve disputes between the parties thereto but are instruments of social engineering and their function is to create a proper social adjustment and a balance between the competing claims and interests in the society. I congratulate the candidates who have successfully completed these courses and have passed the diploma examinations held by the Institute last year. I also thank the members of the defence personnel who have participated in the Certificate Course in the Labour Law. I would, however, like to make only one suggestion to the members of the defence personnel who participate in the Certificate Course in Labour Law, that they should offer themselves for some sort of interview whereat it could be ascertained whether they have derived any benefit from attending the Certificate Course and if so to what extent, whereafter Certificates could be issued to them.

Since, this Institute and every one present here is vitally interested in the proper functioning of the Judiciary, I would utilise this occasion to express my grave concern about a couple of dangerous trends which of late are discernible that seek to affect adversely its independence, fair name and bright image. First is about the manner in which the judgments of the highest Court of the land are being criticised. No one disputes the right of a citizen or a common man to criticise judgments of any Court, including the Supreme Court. After all, Judges are human and no Judge has ever claimed infallibility, and it was said by Lord Atkin as far back as in 1936 that "Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer respectful, even though out-spoken comments of ordinary men". However, any member of the public desirous of exercising his aforesaid right must do so in good-faith. One cannot, while criticising a decision, attribute motives to the Court for deciding the case in a particular way. Recently one judgment of the Supreme Court in a rape case — Matbura's case— has come under severe criticism, particularly in an open letter addressed by four Law teachers to the Chief Justice of India. The letter in respectful language highlights certain points, which, in the opinion of the signatories, make out a case for a review or reconsideration of the decision. But, it was followed by a T. V. interview and a speech at a public seminar where motives were sought to be attributed to the Court by insinuating that the Court in conspiracy had released the culprits and there, I feel, the limit of fair and bona fide criticism was crossed. Further, you must have read in newspapers that a morcha or dharna was organised by certain women organisations at the Supreme Court premises expressing their resentment at the decision and calling for a reconsideration of the decision. This again was entirely a wrong way of ventilating their grievance or criticism against the decision. In my view, even in democracy morchas or dharnas, which usually smack of populist pressure, have no place so far as the Courts and their decisions are concerned. There are proper legal methods to get a wrong decision reviewed or reconsidered and appropriate steps by aggrieved party in that behalf could be taken but taking out morchas or dharnas is certainly not the way to express your disapproval of a decision of any Court.

The other trend which has been noticed recently and which is more dangerous to the independence of the Judiciary is the tendency in some Judges of hovering around seats of political power. Hobnobbing with Ministers or Deputy Ministers or Law Officers of the Government, seeking favours for one's family members for long distance travels unquestionably sully the bright image of the Judiciary. I have said this before and would reiterate it here. If Judges start sending bouquets or congratulatory letters to a political leader on his political victory, eulogizing him on assumption of a high office in adulatory terms, the peoples' confidence in the Judiciary will be shaken; and if this can happen now, the day will not be far off when Judges may even seek appointments and wait on him and other persons who count, and that will be the saddest day for the country and the judiciary. In fact, the recent news item which you all must have read has caused grave anguish and pain to me and many of my colleagues who have expressed their resentment. It is a very disturbing trend damaging the image of Judiciary from within and must be deprecated. The need for vigilance in that behalf cannot be overemphasised, particularly this year when seven vacancies are to be filled in the Supreme Court and any inroad on Judiciary's independence must be stoutly resisted.

Author Name: Hon’ble Justice V D Tulzapurkar