NO! MY LORDS!
By
J.L. GUPTA
The year 1960. The
Annual function at the Law Department of the University. The hall was packed. There
were the distinguished guests, Students, Teachers and many others. For the
first time, I was face to face with a High Court Judge. He looked like the other
human beings. Yet, he stood out. There was a distinct aura about him. A quiet
dignity. A rare rhythm in every movement. He inspired respect. Had a sweet
smile. Did not look stern at all. Yet, he created an awe in the mind. The
dignity of the office was maintained throughout.
All the people stayed at a respectable distance.
Like everything else
around us, this too has changed. Drastically. Today, the Judges can be seen
almost everywhere. No wonder, today when they leave the Court, they walk into
another office. They seem to see no difference between a constitutional office and
a merely statutory post or any other job. Very often, without any real gap of
time. It certainly gives an impression that the efforts had started well in
advance of the date of retirement. In such a situation, the man in the street
can legitimately suspect that the Judge has been rewarded for the services
rendered. The suspicion may be wholly unfounded. The particular Judge may have
been chosen purely on considerations of merit and suitability. But the doubts
still persist. The image of JUDICIARY as an institution takes a bad beating. Every
time, when such a thing happens, it falls from the high pedestal.
My friends may tell me –
“the grapes are sour.” Absolutely true. I shall immediately plead guilty to the
charge. Unhesitatingly acknowledge that I lacked the ability and acumen to get
any job after retirement. Still, the issue is – “Should a Judge accept any job
under the State even after his retirement?” And my answer is – No! Why?
1.
A
Judge like Ceaser’s wife has to be always
free from suspicion. Accepting any favour, small or big, is bound to create a
suspicion and reflect adversely. Thus, it is not at all permissible.
2.
The
goddess of Justice is blind. She sees no person or party. Only the cause. No
storm can shake her throne. It is on this faith that the Judicial system is
founded. Acceptance or even an expectation of a favour rocks the independence
of Judiciary and thus, the very foundation on which the system is founded.
In this background, let
us look at the latest appointment. Of Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam. He retired as
the Chief Justice of India on April 26, 2014. He has already been appointed and
duly sworn in as the Governor of Kerala. People are talking on the social and
the other media. The controversy was wholly avoidable. The august office of the
Chief Justice of India should have been saved from the unsavoury comments.
However, an appointment soon after retirement is neither administratively
appropriate nor politically correct. It affects the independence and image of
the Judiciary as an Institution. The Members of the Judiciary have themselves to
protect it by firmly resisting every temptation. Not by readily yielding to it.
No! My Lords! It is not in conformity with the dignity of the high office held
by you.
Another great post from you, Jawahar! Good job!
ReplyDeleteElectionan vich men Punjabi sikhi. Galtian maaf karna.
ReplyDeleteGabhrao nan, Uncleji. Der hai andher nahin. Bus panj ku salan di hi gal hai. "Achhe din" phir aun gey, inshaa Allah. Chheytin aa sakde si agar Amit shah vargey crookan vaste kujh keeta hunda. Nahin keeta tan bahut changa keeta. Eh tan barhi fakhar wali gal hai ji.
Haal hi vich Judiciary vastey Modiji ne barhian mushkalan kharhian kar dittian han.
Jai Hind
Phuphaji, great article. You have consistently maintained this stand and rightly so. Judiciary is the strongest pillar of our democracy and its players sit on a high pedestal revered and feared at the same time. Behaving like ordinary mortals, easily succumbing to temptations of power and prestige does no good to the individuals or to the high pedestal that they sat on for so long. Retirement from office requires as much grace as does the occupation of office.
ReplyDeleteWell written! Conceptually apt, content appropriate.
ReplyDeleteUnder the Indian Constitution the governor is appointed by the President and holds office during his pleasure (pleasure of the party in power). Judicial independence has been put at stake by this recent appointment. It is stated that this is due to favoritism being bestowed as an expression of gratitude for a favourable decision.
ReplyDeleteTo set aside any rumors occurring on this account, ideally a judge should free himself of any suspicion. Therefore it is rightly suggested that judges should not accept political posts as a post retirement benefit.
Even though one swallow does not make a summer. Nevertheless there is a need is to uphold the ethics attached to the exalted office of a judge.
This incident reflects that holding the highest office in Judiciary of the country does not bestow one with propriety, though in theory and in retrospect, such an esteemed office of Chief Justice should have been handed to a man capable of upholding its dignity, in the first place. With the legislature attempting to control the Judiciary further, unfortunately, such instances will no longer remain rare.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note, kudos to Mr. Paji Paul for learning Punjabi impeccably. More so during elections, where people rarely learn something positive.
Prashant ji,
DeleteThanks for the compliments. My gratitude goes to the AAP election team volunteers for Prof. Sadhu Singh ji (Faridkot) and Sardar Longia ji (Bathinda). People tell me my dilect is of Bathinda region. Can you detect?
Contrary to your conjecture, people do learn a lot positive during elections. The most optimistic aspect is to see real democracy in action. For me the enthusiasm of Punjabis to venture into a brand new experiment was the most incredible thing to witness. Too bad AAP did not do as well in other States. Next time, inshaa Allah.
Jai Hind
Very rightly said. This phenomenon is even more pronounced in bureaucracy. Many a civil servants lose their spine when it is needed the most..in senior most positions...in hope of suitable rewards post retirement. I think a minimum of a 2 year ban is essential after retirement if not a complete ban. But then when there is a nexus between politicians and bureaucrats/judges, who will bell the cat?
ReplyDelete