What Happened in the Supreme Court Courtroom?
- Why Does Justice Markandey Katju Condemn the Courtroom Incident?
- Why Is an Independent Judiciary Essential for Democracy?
- How Does Public Trust Shape the Legitimacy of the Judiciary?
- Historical Examples of Judicial Accountability: From Chandragupta Maurya to Jahangir
- Why Does Justice Katju Believe Public Confidence in the Judiciary Is Declining?
- Judicial Delays, Corruption Allegations and the Crisis of Justice in India
- Should Judges Maintain Distance from Politicians? Justice Katju's Perspective
- The Debate Over Judicial Independence and Public Perception
Could Similar Courtroom Incidents Recur? Justice Katju's Warning
Description
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Markandey Katju reflects on a recent courtroom disruption in the Supreme Court of India and argues that the incident should be understood in the broader context of declining public confidence in the judiciary. While condemning the misconduct, Katju discusses the constitutional role of courts, the importance of judicial independence and impartiality, historical traditions of justice in India, concerns about judicial delays, allegations of corruption and the relationship between judges and political leaders. The article presents Justice Katju's personal views on the challenges facing India's judicial system and the need to restore public trust in the rule of law.
An untoward incident in the Indian Supreme Court
By Justice Markandey Katju
Recently, a person, Prabal Pratap, misbehaved in a courtroom of the Indian Supreme Court, before a bench of Justices K.V. Vishwanath and Alok Aradhe, calling the judges 'judicial servants', ordering them to do something, throwing the papers of his file into the air, and uttering a filthy abuse for the Chief Justice of India, Justice Suryakant.
I condemn this act. However, it is necessary to go deeper and understand why such incidents happen.
For this, we must first understand what is the purpose of a judiciary, and what is its role in society.
I have explained this in an interview I gave to my friend Kapil Sibal, former Union Minister and senior advocate of the Supreme Court, on his show 'Dil se' :
Why have a judiciary at all? After all, a huge amount of money has to be spent on maintaining it. The judges and their staff have to be given salaries, allowances, and perks, and court buildings have to be built, etc. Why not simply do away with the judiciary and spend all the money saved on the welfare of the people?
The answer is that a judiciary is absolutely necessary to maintain peace, law and order in society. Let me explain.
It is in the nature of things that in every society there will be some disputes between the people, and between people and the state authorities. So there has to be a forum where such disputes are resolved peacefully, otherwise they will be resolved violently, by guns, bombs or swords.
For instance, suppose a person A has a dispute with his neighbour B over a piece of land, both claiming to be its owner. A comes to court and files a case against B. Both parties, through their lawyers, file their pleadings, lead evidence, and their counsels are heard. Then the judge pronounces his judgment. Even the party who loses the case has the satisfaction that he was given a hearing, and this to some extent pacifies him, and restrains him from resorting to violence.
However, this is possible only when the judge has a reputation of being upright, independent, and impartial. Without this, the people will have no faith in the judge and will not accept his verdict.
A study of history shows that all societies, at all times, had a judiciary, and no society could do without it.
Thus, Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador of Seleucus Nicator ( who got the eastern part of Alexander the Great's empire on the latter's death ) to the court of Emperor Chandragupta Maurya in Pataliputra in the third century BC, wrote a book called 'Indica' ( fragments of which have survived ). In this book he wrote of the Emperor himself deciding cases, assisted by his councillors. Megasthenes noted that the Emperor spent full days presiding over legal disputes without interruption. According to the fragments ( preserved by later classical writers like Strabo and Arrian ), the Emperor was highly accessible to his subjects on these days, personally hearing their grievances and ensuring a strict, impartial system of justice.
The Mughals had a high sense of justice, and Emperor Jahangir installed a chain of justice in Agra Fort which anyone with a grievance could pull, which made the Emperor appear personally to do justice.
Many more such historical examples can be given.
Of late, it seems that the Indian people are losing faith in the Indian judiciary. Even former Supreme Court Justice AS Oka has publicly acknowledged that the common person's faith in the institution is faltering
Apart from the great delay in deciding cases, there is massive corruption in the Indian judiciary ( though there are honest judges too ). This was disclosed by a senior advocate of the Supreme Court and former Union Law Minister in 2010 in an application filed before the Supreme Court, stating that half of the previous 16 Chief Justices of India were definitely corrupt ( whose names he gave in a sealed envelope ).
Many of the judges allegedly have pro-government leanings, and so cannot be impartial and independent, as a judge should be.
Former CJI Gavai took a holiday with Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal. Was this proper? Did Gavai not realize he was compromising himself and his office ? Geographic Reference
A judiciary should be independent, politically neutral, and impartial. This requires judges not to mix with politicians ( other than the Chief Justice meeting the Prime Minister/Chief Minister for discussing funds which the court may require, increasing the strength of the judges, or other matters relating to the judiciary).
Why then should CJI Gavai have gone on a holiday to Rajasthan with the Law Minister?
Similarly, it was wholly improper for the then CJI Chandrachud to invite the Prime Minister to his residence for Ganesh puja. Chandrachud tried to justify this by saying that sometimes the CJI has to meet the PM. This is true if the meeting is to discuss some matter connected with the judiciary e.g., an increase in the number of judges, or an increase in their salaries, or giving them some allowances, or funds needed for constructing new court buildings, etc. But inviting the PM by Chandrachud to his residence for Ganesh puja had nothing to do with the judiciary and was certainly unwarranted and uncalled for.
When I was the Chief Justice of Madras High Court ( 2004-2005 ) I never went to the office or residence of the then Chief Minister, Ms Jayalalitha, or her adversary, Mr Karunanidhi. Once, the Chief Minister sent me an invitation through the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu to attend the Republic Day Parade in Marina Beach, where the Governor was to take the salute, which I politely declined.
The reason for declining it ( which of course I did not tell the Chief Secretary ) was that in that function if a corrupt Minister or other corrupt politician extended his hand to shake hands with me, I would have to take it. That may be filmed in a mobile camera, and the next day the photo may be published in the newspapers. What then would the public think of me? Would they not think that here is a Chief Justice hobnobbing with a corrupt politician?
Judges should lead a reclusive life and sit at home in the evenings, instead of going to functions or parties, if they want the public to respect them.
All this has created deep frustration and distress in a large section of the Indian public, which feels it has no hope of getting justice. Consequently, incidents like the one which happened before the bench of Justices Vishwanath and Aradhe, are likely to recur often.
I do not approve of them, but they will happen all the same.
(Justice Markandey Katju is a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, and former Chairman of the Press Council of India. The views expressed are his own.)
Q1. What happened in the recent Supreme Court courtroom incident?
According to Justice Markandey Katju, a litigant allegedly disrupted proceedings before a Supreme Court bench by using abusive language, throwing case papers and making derogatory remarks against members of the judiciary. Katju condemns the conduct but argues that it also reflects growing public frustration with the justice delivery system.
Q2. Why does Justice Katju believe such incidents are occurring?
Justice Katju argues that many people have lost confidence in the judiciary because of factors such as delays in deciding cases, allegations of corruption and concerns about judicial independence. In his view, these issues have created widespread frustration, though he does not justify misconduct in court.
Q3. Why is judicial independence important according to Justice Katju?
Justice Katju states that judges must be independent, impartial and politically neutral so that citizens trust court decisions. He argues that public confidence in the judiciary depends not only on fair judgments but also on judges maintaining an appearance of neutrality.
Q4. Why does Justice Katju criticize judges interacting socially with politicians?
Justice Katju believes judges should avoid unnecessary social engagements with political leaders because such interactions may create a perception of bias or compromise judicial independence. He argues that public trust depends on both actual impartiality and the appearance of impartiality.
Q5. Does Justice Katju support disruptive behaviour inside courts?
No. Justice Katju explicitly condemns the courtroom misconduct. However, he argues that unless systemic problems affecting the judiciary are addressed, similar incidents may continue to occur because of declining public confidence in the justice system.
Editor's Note: This article reflects the personal views of Justice Markandey Katju. References to allegations or opinions mentioned in the article should be understood as the author's views and not as judicial findings or established facts.
