Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on January 15 met for 15 minutes the four most senior Supreme Court (SC) judges who called him out last week for alleged irregularities in how he assigns cases. International dailies reported that their sources said the meeting was also attended by Justice A K Sikri and two other judges. They also said this is probably the first step towards making efforts to resolve the distrust between the CJI and four judges.
The Attorney General KK Venugopal backtracked from his statement of January 15, to say that the issues the judges have are still to be resolved.
However, he hoped things will be sorted out in the next couple of days.
A crisis erupted on last Friday after four senior judges openly criticised the functioning of the top court headed by Justice Misra holding a press conference. The four top SC judges later resumed work, ending the most unusual situation. It was most unexpected for the judges to hold a press conference to make public an internal judicial problem.
The Attorney General had described the unprecedented crisis as “a storm in a tea cup”.
It appears to be a lot more than that, though. Amid all this back and forth, the Supreme Court on Monday announced the composition of a 5-judge Constitution Bench headed by the CJI to look into the matter. The four judges complained that sensitive and important cases are being assigned to “Select Benches” headed by junior Supreme Court judges.
Apparently the four were told that if they had talked to all judges about this alleged ‘irregular assignments’, the judges would have solved the dispute themselves.
Whatever be the nature of the grievance, judges cannot show arrogance of holding a press conference alleging against a brother judge, in this case the Chief Justice himself. It has certainly put in the question how in a mature democracy the judges of the highest court set such a self-derogatory and ‘unlike judge’ example.
The judges remain the final guardians of the law and justice and if they cannot resolve their differences following their own devices then there is something wrong among themselves. The judges do not cause public debate or take part in public debate. A judge epitomises what is called calm and sober conduct. The worldwide complement enjoyed by the judges is ‘sober as judge’. This applies to the Chief Justice also if he appeared conceited. The judiciary is not a place for conceit and arrogance.
It does not bode well for the confidence people repose in the judiciary. The matter could have been solved decently if raised and discussed among fellow judges. The four judges should not have brought out in public what is an internal administrative matter. It is the Chief Justice’s discretion how to constitute Benches and distribute cases. This is same everywhere. But that does not mean the Chief Justice will not fair and judicious.
We do not deny that it is possible for the Chief Justice to be favouring some judges while distributing cases. Yet, the four judges should have known that they like politicians do not go to the press with a matter of their own.
We do not deny that it is possible for the Chief Justice to be favouring some judges while distributing cases. Yet, the four judges should have known that they like politicians do not go to the press with a matter of their own.
The Supreme Court judges hold a very special position of respectability for the faith they enjoy of the people. They cannot behave like ordinary people. They are known for their calm judgement and balanced discretion. We are relieved to know that steps are being taken by the Chief Justice for resolving the grievance.
