Turmoil in higher judiciary

The higher judiciary could have done without another distraction in the form of government differing with the Supreme Court collegium’s recommendation for the appointment of two judges. The Centre has no beef with one appointment but has dragged its feet on the elevation of Uttarakhand Chief Justice CJ Joseph. In the past too, the government has segregated the appointment to high courts and the Supreme Court. What is extraordinary is the current divisive and vitiated atmosphere in which the Centre announced its preferences: the Vice-President has turned down an impeachment motion against the Chief Justice of India (CJI) while four senior judges have questioned the CJI’s allocation of cases with far-reaching consequences to junior judges and Benches.

The rift between the executive and the judiciary over judicial appointments is not of recent vintage. Neither is the gripe by some senior judges against the CJI. But the politician’s intervention in the form of Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad’s explanation may have further muddied the waters. The government did well to disclose its position on judicial appointments, just like it kept itself away from the internal conflict in the judiciary. But the minister’s attempt to gain the upper hand in the narrative may have led to indiscretions that can cast a long shadow on the institution in the longer term. 

Appointments to the apex court have studiously avoided any spotlight on regional and caste considerations. But the minister chose to justify the government’s disapproval of Justice CJ Joseph’s elevation on the basis of more-than-adequate representation to Kerala. This has the potential to open up a Pandora’s box and may invite much more scrutiny from the politician into the affairs of the Supreme Court than is warranted. The time has come for the Supreme Court to rise up to the challenge confronting its credibility as a republican institution. One proposal is to thrash out the differences in a full court meeting of all the Supreme Court judges. Whatever be its chosen course, the judiciary owes it to the esteem it enjoys in society to end its internal state of ferment.