The wheels of justice have not been working satisfactorily in this country for a long time, especially with unwarranted delays and postponements, with grave damage to the litigants who feel crushed under the weight of protracted and expensive proceedings. People genuinely seeking justice feel helpless, as more and more cases keep piling due to the injustice meted out to the people by the bureaucracy, the Executive and the Legislature. Unfortunately, the Courts take on the burden caused by acts of omission and commission of the authorities, without a whimper.
It is also regrettable that several people who raised issues of corruption, bribery and injustice have sometimes paid the price for their courage and honesty, a few times with their lives. Goa Governor S P Malik’s transfer is a case in point. He too had to pay the price for having boldly and rightly expressed his views. Surely it does no honour to anyone to transfer him, in such a short time, for being outspoken and courageous.
With the Legislature and the Executive being what they are and a servile bureaucracy always willing to bend, the Courts were our only hope, but unfortunately even some of these seem now to be toeing the official line. In Prashant Bhushan’s case 1500 lawyers asked the Supreme Court to hold an open hearing to “review the standards of criminal contempt” and to “take corrective steps to prevent miscarriage of justice”, adding that a Bar “silenced under the threat of contempt” will “undermine the independence and ultimately the strength” of the SC.
The lawyers said: “An independent judiciary does not mean that judges are immune from scrutiny and comment. ‘Justice is not a cloistered virtue… She must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men’.
In another statement, several jurists, including former Judges of SC, and other prominent people said that the tweets were a bona fide expression of concern regarding the functioning of SC, which is the fundamental right of every citizen. “The intention was to urge the court to restart physical hearings, particularly of matters of national importance. The intention was also to engage with the concerns articulated by many regarding the reluctance of the judiciary to play its constitutionally mandated role as a check on governmental excesses and violations of fundamental rights by the state,” Such criticism, especially by a senior member of the bar, must be considered by the judiciary as an opportunity to introspect and strengthen the institution”.“To hold that such criticism shakes the foundations of the judiciary and needs to be dealt with an iron hand, appears to be a disproportionate response which could, in fact, diminish the reputation of the Court,” they added.
They noted that former Chief Justice Bharucha said that the Court should have broad shoulders to ignore such criticism even if it thinks it is unfair and unwarranted.
We can only hope and pray that better sense will prevail and people will once agains repose their faith in the Judiciary.
