Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s resolution on Thursday to share on social media an open letter by a gaggle of over 600 attorneys addressed to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud alleging {that a} “vested curiosity group” is attempting to place stress on the judiciary and undermine public religion within the courts is unprecedented and problematic, a number of members of the Bar mentioned.
“This makes it appear that the letter had political backing,” mentioned Delhi-based advocate on file Amit Pai. One other Delhi-based advocate who requested to stay unidentified mentioned that the letter wouldn’t have attracted a lot consideration had Modi not posted it on social media.
The letter mentioned this claimed try to affect the courtroom “on the premise of frivolous logic and off political agendas” isn’t just disrespectful and contemptuous to the judiciary but in addition a risk to democracy.
Many of the outstanding signatories to the letter are attorneys related to the Bharatiya Janata Social gathering. Although the letter doesn’t point out any political events, when Prime Minister Modi shared the letter on social media, he added a message claiming that “to browbeat and bully others is classic Congress tradition”.
This prompted retorts from Congress leaders Mallikarjun Kharge and Jairam Ramesh. “Modiji, establishment after Establishment is being ’bullied’ by you into submission, so cease pinning the blame on the Congress social gathering to your personal sins!” Kharge mentioned.
To browbeat and bully others is classic Congress tradition.
5 a long time in the past itself that they had referred to as for a ”dedicated judiciary” – they shamelessly need dedication from others for his or her egocentric pursuits however desist from any dedication in the direction of the nation.
No marvel 140 crore Indians… https://t.co/dgLjuYONHH
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) March 28, 2024
It’s fairly widespread for teams of attorneys to write down open letters to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court docket drawing consideration to specific points or grievances, attorneys support. However this open letter is uncommon as a result of it was rapidly endorsed by the prime minister himself.
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran mentioned it it was probably not involved with the independence of the judiciary. “Its political endorsement additionally signifies that it was solely meant to oblige the federal government,” he mentioned.
Some attorneys pointed to the paradox of Modi utilizing the letter to assault the Congress for in search of a “dedicated judiciary” as Indira Gandhi as soon as did since his BJP authorities has been accused of undermining judicial independence.
“Why is the federal government not clearing the switch of judges from one excessive courtroom to a different or the appointment of sure attorneys as excessive courtroom judges, as really useful and reiterated on a number of events by the Supreme Court docket collegium?” requested Delhi-based advocate on file Paras Nath Singh. “What’s the message that the federal government is sending?”
Singh was referring to the Modi authorities selectively approving suggestions of the Supreme Court docket collegium despite the federal government being legally sure to present impact to all such proposals. The collegium consists of the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court docket and recommends appointments and transfers to the Bench on the Supreme Court docket and Excessive Courts. By appearing selectively, the Modi authorities has exercised efficient management over judicial appointments, attorneys mentioned.
Others famous that there have been a number of cases over the previous couple of years of politically-sensitive circumstances being pulled from judges essential of the federal government. The saga in March of a choose resigning from the Calcutta Excessive Court docket and becoming a member of the BJP days later to contest the Lok Sabha election, admitting that he was in contact with the BJP whereas serving on the Excessive Court docket, has additionally led to questions on shrinking judicial independence underneath Modi.
Political divide
Although the Bar has at all times had members with various political leanings, it has turn out to be sharply divided over he final decade, attorneys advised Scroll.
“Attorneys have at all times been actively concerned in politics,” mentioned Delhi-based senior advocate Sanjoy Ghose. “Nonetheless, they’ve by no means let politics into Bar issues.”
However the polarisation of the final decade has precipitated a break up within the Bar, he mentioned: “Its unity has gone.”
A Delhi-based advocate agreed the Bar has turn out to be “very divided”.
“Earlier, the Bar used to talk in a single voice and the Advocate Normal used to talk for the Bar,” he mentioned on situation of anonymity.
One other Delhi-based advocate identified {that a} essential issue behind this polarisation is the BJP’s mobilisation of the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, a right-wing organisation of attorneys related to the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh’s, the BJP’s ideological mother or father.
“Earlier, the Parishad didn’t have a lot presence or significance within the Bar,” they mentioned. “Now, it holds occasions commonly all year long”.
Pointed assaults
A lawyer who requested to stay unidentified mentioned that there’s a distinction between letters difficult administrative choices and highlighting sure points and advocating for reforms and this letter that castigates a category of attorneys.
“It doesn’t behoove the bar to assault anybody,” he mentioned.
He famous that the letter “assaults the knowledge of the Supreme Court docket” and “questions its stature”. “One is left to wonder if the Supreme Court docket is so gullible as to be influenced by a couple of attorneys right here and there,” he mentioned.
Ghose requested why the letter had attacked these questioning the judiciary. “Why is the judiciary past criticism?” he requested. “The Bar is the guardian of the judiciary. It’s the responsibility of the Bar to criticise the bench.”
Amit Pai, alternatively, mentioned that it isn’t price making an excessive amount of of the letter. “It simply expresses a viewpoint,” he mentioned. “I personally don’t assist it, however it’s a type of protest.”