Free Or Fettered?

Let truth be told. Ranjan Gogoi, the honourable Rajya Sabha MP, has as many detractors as diehard followers dep­ending on who is on which side. He was nominated to the Upper House months after his tum­ultuous tenure as Chief Justice of India ended during which he controversially fast-tracked the Ram Janmabhoomi hearings, ruled in fav­our of a Ram temple in Ayodhya, and also strangely sat to hear a case of sexual harassment against himself. Gogoi is a pol­arising figure as is our divided polity. Yet, when he recently remarked that the judiciary in the country was in a ramshackle state and that few preferred to go to the courts these days, Gogoi got our att­ention. Though an unlikely candidate, he did prick our collective conscience.

In saying what he said, the former CJI gave voice to cascading concerns about the current state of the judiciary, the Supreme Court included. Already driven up the wall by inordinate delays and backlogs that plague our courts바카라”depriving millions of legal redressal guaranteed by the Constitution and forcing them into depths of des­pair바카라”there are added elements of doubts and distrust we are compelled to contend with. Though spoken only in hushed tones for the fear of contempt, there is swirling speculation about how free our judges are from pulls and pressures, and whether the judiciary remains independent.

ALSO READ:

The murmurs of discontent have grown over the years to a point where the elephant in the room cannot be ignored any longer. While evidently the judiciary still boasts of individuals with fine minds and impeccable track records, there are also a few who have periodically invited scorn through their pronouncements, including when several judges chose to heap praise on the country바카라™s chief executive as a 바카라˜visionary바카라™. While what it did to boost the persona of the elected official is yet to be ascertained, that it lowered the court바카라™s stature in public esteem is almost a certainty.

Judges are human too and obviously entitled to opinions. But given the nature of responsibilities they discharge, they are exp­ected to divorce themselves from their personal beliefs while delivering judgments. However, there is growing perception that the judiciary is no longer removed from personal preferences and our legal system serves those in power more than the people.

ALSO READ:

The past few years have particularly been replete with such instances. There have been times when the judiciary has acted with uncharacteristic alacrity, including when Gogoi chose to hear the Ram Janmabhoomi case for weeks on end at the expense of other important cases. As was the case when the top court chose to grant controversial TV anchor Arnab Goswami an expedient hearing and hastily granted him bail while others continued to rot in jail for want of a similar privilege being extended to them. Or, when the Supreme Court waded into the debate over the contentious farm laws and ruled to stay them without much of a discussion in what, many believe, was a case of judicial overreach.

The malaise, many say, rests in the age-old opacity and lack of transparency that now define our judicial system, including how judges are appointed, appraised, promoted and the manner in which cases are allotted. But as it is with overreach, the end res­ult is invariably debilitating when the top court decides not to act. The top court has been found to be dragging its feet when it was expected to act urgently바카라”in cases ranging from the abrogation of Article 370 to matters pertaining to personal liberty.

ALSO READ:

This special issue of Outlook is an attempt to dive deep into what many of us have often wondered but refrained from asking aloud: Is our judiciary politicised? The jury has been out on this for far too long and it바카라™s time we learn more about what helps or hobbles our Lordships.

ALSO READ

Ruben Banerjee Editor In Chief