Fairly or unfairly, judges are being judged

I have a soft corner for Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, the Chief Justice of India (CJI). He was my daughter’s classmate at Mumbai’s Cathedral and John Connon School for a short period. But that is not the reason for the affinity which is often tested when my friends criticise some of his judgments. My sympathies have much deeper roots — his father, Justice YV Chandrachud, who also served as the CJI, was one of my mentors in my student days.

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court did the judiciary proud by lambasting the CBI in the Kejriwal case.

I will not dare to advise the son, now that he occupies the highest judicial post in our country. Even the fact that he is a good 30 years younger than me gives me no right to preach.

His father was my teacher at Government Law College (GLC), Mumbai, where I studied from 1948 to 1950. The Chandrachud family’s ancestral home was in Pune, where I happened to be posted as that city’s last Superintendent of Police in 1964. It was upgraded to a Police Commissionerate in 1965, but in the one year that I led the city’s police force, Justice YV Chandrachud visited his home in Pune thrice.

He was the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court at that time. That fact did not deter him from visiting an old pupil. My office happened to be midway between his ancestral home and the Pune railway station.

Each time that happened, the entire clerical staff of my office would stop work to get a glimpse of the state’s highest judicial authority. On one of those visits, Justice JR Vimadalal, another of my teachers at the GLC, accompanied him.

My appointment as the Superintendent of the Pune city police at a comparatively junior stage had displeased many senior colleagues but gladdened the hearts of two of my teachers who had been raised to the Bench from the Bar. Their visits are etched in my memory. And when the senior Chandrachud himself became the CJI some years later, I had sufficient cause to experience vicarious pride.

My readers will now understand why I wince when my old teacher’s son, who has also risen to occupy the CJI’s chair, is sometimes justly, but often unjustly, criticised by my liberal friends.

The present CJI’s gesture of inviting Prime Minister Narendra Modi to his official residence to participate in the aarti of Maharashtra’s favourite deity Ganesha has attracted flak. Personally, I see no harm in the gesture. There is no reason to discard social contact if it has no hidden agenda. I am sure past Chief Justices had invited Prime Ministers or senior politicians to their homes. The problem arose this year because unnecessary publicity was accorded to what should have been a private occasion.

The question arises: Who gave the aarti photographs to the media? If it was not the Chief Justice, I see no fault in him. If it is the Prime Minister’s well-oiled propaganda cell, that would be par for the course. And in that case, the CJI cannot be pilloried. If, however, the Chief Justice or his staff did distribute the photos among the media, the intelligentsia would be justified to ascribe motives and my tongue would then be tied. I do hope that the culprit is not my revered teacher’s son or his administrative establishment.

Another Supreme Court judge from Maharashtra who was in the news recently, albeit for positive reasons, was Justice BR Gavai. His Bench examined the complaint against ‘bulldozer justice’, which needs to be strictly restricted lest the ‘rule of law’ is sent for a toss. Bulldozers can be used for demolishing illegally built structures. Before municipal officers use them, procedures have to be followed. If they are not followed, the entire exercise is patently unlawful.

There has been much criticism, mostly justified, of parties to unauthorised construction taking advantage of the judicial process to delay the use of the bulldozer. The remedy lies not in abandoning the procedures but for the high courts instructing the judicial magistrate’s court not to give leeway to lawyers attempting to delay the due process.

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan is another Supreme Court judge who did the judiciary proud recently. In the matter of Arvind Kejriwal’s bail, he lambasted the CBI for not stepping out of the ‘parrot’s cage’ even after its Director was chosen under the new arrangement that permitted him or her to ignore irregular verbal orders of the political establishment. Of course, he or she will not be offered a post-retirement sinecure. But that is a small price to pay for a clear conscience and self-respect.

The arrest of then Delhi Chief Minister in June was patently an attempt to keep him incarcerated for a prolonged period. He had been granted interim bail in May in the case registered by the Enforcement Directorate. That bail order was not to the government’s liking! So, it did appear that the CBI helped to ensure that Kejriwal would be kept away from the political arena for a few more months. The timing was too convenient for the public to ignore.

Kejriwal started off as a crusader against corruption. As a crusader, he made his mark. If he had continued as a crusader, he would have been a resounding success. Besides being useful to the people, he would have been assured of their respect. By deciding to abandon Anna Hazare and enter the political arena, he ventured into dangerous territory, one that he had fought against.

He soon learnt that political parties cannot exist without funding. One of his present bugbears, the BJP, managed very cleverly with electoral bonds. Once the apex court frowned on the system because of its opacity, that party, too, went back to traditional methods. The BJP can go after other parties that follow such known (and unfortunately accepted) methods because it is today in the driver’s seat.

Parties led by Kejriwal and Mamata Banerjee are Modi’s bugbears. The BJP will pursue them to consolidate its mandate to rule.