Justice does not depend on symbolism
The statue of ‘Lady Justice’ was unveiled a few months ago by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud in the Supreme Court judges’ library; the media has picked up the issue only now. It is believed that a mural on the wall of the Judges Gallery in the SC gave the idea to the CJI to Indianise the statue in order to document the evolving nature of the Indian justice system. The mural depicts Lady Justice attired as an Indian goddess, with open eyes and having no blindfold; a book (supposedly the Constitution of India) is seen in her hand in place of the traditional sword, suggesting that justice is not blind in this country, nor does it symbolise punishment in new India.
The modification in the design of the statue, which is long associated with the judiciary and legal institutions, is being described by some law experts and media reports as an attempt to come out of the colonial past and its traditional attributes, although it does not appear to be so.
The concept of Lady Justice, whether in the form of paintings, sculptures or metal statues, is not new to the world; it dates back to the ancient Greek and Egyptian civilisations. Themis, the Greek goddess, represented law, order and justice, while the Egyptians had Maat, who stood for order and carried both sword and feather of truth. The most direct comparison, however, is with the Roman goddess of justice, Justitia. The ancient Romans revered Justitia, whose image closely resembles the statue created in modern times. She represented the morality of the justice system.
There is no uniform or standard design of the statue of Lady Justice and it varies from country to country. At some places, she is depicted stepping on a snake, indicating that justice prevails over evil forces and corruption, while the snake is missing elsewhere. The scales of justice are the common feature in all depictions of the idol of justice, representing impartiality and obligation of the judges to weigh the evidence presented before them. Evidences produced by all parties need to be looked at, and comparisons made while delivering justice.
The blindfold on some statues of Lady Justice appeared for the first time in the 16th century and has been used in many art works since then. Apparently, its original significance was that the judicial system was tolerating abuse or ignorance of the law to the peril of many innocents. However, in modern times, the blindfold represents impartiality and objectivity of the law and that it doesn’t let other factors, such as politics, wealth or fame, influence its decisions.
The SC in Zahira Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004), had the opportunity to redefine the concept of blindfold, when Zahira Sheikh, a victim of Godhra riots, retracted from her previous statements before the court on three occasions. The SC has observed that the blindfold should be nothing more than a veil which can be lifted by the court, if need be, to see who the parties are before it, in order to prevent miscarriage of justice.
The removal of the blindfold from the design of the new statue in the SC is being propagated as the ushering in of a new era in which the legal system would not get influenced by the status and social standing of the litigants. At this juncture, there is no reason to discard this prophecy; even the CJI has justified the removal of the blindfold, saying that the law is not blind; it sees everyone equally.
At the philosophical level, intellectuals believe that mere removal of the blindfold from the eyes of the statue and replacing the sword with the copy of the Constitution do not amount to Indianisation of the concept of justice, as is being ‘overstated’. They argue that in Indian mythology both gods of justice are male — Shani Dev, who does justice for living people, and Yamaraja, who does justice after the death of a person. Ideally, for the Indianisation of the concept of justice, the Indian god of justice should have replaced the statue of Lady Justice.
Critics are also of the view that replacement of the sword with the Constitution in the hand of Lady Justice is also not a proper move. Every Indian god and goddess is depicted to be carrying a weapon on his/her person to destroy the evil forces. In fact, there is no justice unless proper machinery is available to implement the verdict of the court through coercion.
Law and justice are two different concepts. The book in the hand of the statue symbolises the importance of law, whereas the sword signifies the primacy of ensuring justice available to the victim at the grassroots level. Justice Krishna Iyer in the All-India Judges case (1992) has observed that law is a means to an end and justice is that end. Therefore, the new statue is incomplete without a symbol of coercion on her person to guarantee the implementation of the orders of the court. Without the power of coercion, justice would remain a flawed concept.
Some media reports also state that the new statue symbolises the judiciary’s break from its colonial legacy. It is also not a correct statement as the concept of justice and its depiction in different art forms predate many centuries before the colonial era began.
Therefore, it would be too far-fetched a conclusion to read any meaning in the attributes on the person of the new statue, although its value as an art piece is historic and cannot be denied. Justice does not depend on symbolism; it has many shades and dimensions, which can be read either from the faces of the litigants wandering in the courts or gathered from the peace and tranquility prevailing in the society.
