Why judges mustn’t wash dirty linen in public

In the last few months, the judiciary has witnessed some unprecedented developments that appear to have dented its image in the public eye. Be it the decision to make public photos and videos of the alleged cash recovery from Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence in Delhi during a fire incident on March 14, or the controversy surrounding the delay in vacating the CJI’s official bungalow by former CJI DY Chandrachud, or 13 judges of the Allahabad High Court objecting to the to the “tone and tenor” of the top court’s order not to assign criminal cases to Justice Prashant Kumar – all gave it bad press.

Even before an inquiry by the Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya could begin, the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna chose to make public photos and videos of the alleged cash recovery at Justice Varma’s residence, creating a perception of guilt. Following his indictment by an in-house committee, Justice Khanna recommended his removal to the government.

On August 12, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla initiated the process to remove Justice Varma – now a judge of the Allahabad High Court – by setting up a three-member committee led by Justice Aravind Kumar of the Supreme Court to investigate the charges of misconduct against him. But the entire process under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, is such that publicity will continue to accrue — which in these cases means the judiciary will be the beneficiary of that publicity – irrespective of the outcome of the removal process.

Much to the embarrassment of former CJI Chandrachud and the judiciary itself, the Supreme Court administration wrote to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs on July 1 asking it to get vacated a bungalow at 5, Krishna Menon Marg, New Delhi, occupied by him after he overstayed much beyond the permissible period. The publication of the letter sent a wrong message over the rectitude of judges. Justice Chandrachud has since shifted to another government accommodation but the damage is already done.

But the worst case of all was the controversy created by the Supreme Court’s August 4 unprecedented order restraining Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court from hearing criminal cases “till he demits office” and directing that he should be made to sit with a seasoned senior judge — which invited a sharp reaction from judges of the Allahabad High Court.

Taking strong exception to the “tone and tenor” of the August 4 order passed by the Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, a group of 13 judges of the Allahabad High Court wrote to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali demanding a Full Court meeting to pass a resolution refusing to comply with the directions regarding Justice Kumar’s criminal case roster, stating that the Supreme Court does not have administrative superintendence over high courts. The situation was such that CJI BR Gavai had to write a letter to the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench requesting it to reconsider the controversial directions and strong strictures against Justice Kumar.

Finally, the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench recalled the controversial directions on August 8. “While we delete it, we leave it to the Chief Justice of the High Court to now look into the matter. We fully acknowledge that the Chief Justice of the High Court is the master of the roster,” it said.

This again invited negative publicity for the judiciary and exposed a chink in its armour, making it vulnerable to public criticism.

Democracy functions through institutions and the Judiciary remains an important pillar of the State edifice that keeps it on track, should there be any deviations and derelictions. Often described as the most powerful judiciary in the world, India’s judiciary (particularly the constitutional courts) exercises tremendous powers to check legislative and executive excesses to protect fundamental rights and civil liberties. However, there is no such oversight over its functioning, except in extreme cases requiring removal of judges for misconduct.

Moral of the story? Those manning the institution should avoid washing dirty linen in public, lest it dent public trust and erode its credibility, overshadowing the good work done over several decades.

Delhi