Supreme Court has been our moral conscience and it has upheld individual liberty at utmost priority while resolving arduous cases ranging from Right To Privacy case where the Centre was bashed for its decision on mandatory Aadhar linkage to providing integrity of Right to life even to the pride population of the nation. The triple talaq judgment was also a drawing of beautiful hopes in times of fundamental identity crisis for Muslim women. One Judge even claimed, “merely because a practice has continued for long can’t make it valid”.
However, malpractices of the watchman sought a resort after the Judicial crisis was a public phenomenon. The severe degrees of amusement that this episode brought to the common people ranged accordingly.
The first ambiguity aroused in consideration of the subject as the internal conflict at the hour it was made public with the most accepted means of mass communication i.e. media. This brought clashes of opinions as to consider it just an issue of re-evaluation of our judicial system or the way the justice givers had to seek justice in public.
The other fact presented by the 4 judges responded to the idea that the judiciary was painting the faults of its system as mere administrative issues. However, the matter raised by the judges were intersects of both judicial as well as administrative sections.
The third and most severe allegations at the Chief Justice of India were summoning his actions as a response to lack of internal democracy in the apex court. At the heart of the dispute is the CJI’s role as master of the roster, with a prerogative to constitute benches of the apex court and allocate cases selectively irrespective of seniority. The memorandum of procedure for appointing judges for cases was questioned.
The lack of internal discipline was also registered with the change of benches of judges to provide inclined decisions in various cases, Aadhar being an important one. Such form of inclination to the government by a pillar of democracy could snatch the power of guarding democracy.
The other most pointed out factor was Death of Justice Loya seeking a justice for his death by a special probe in demand by the judges. This was also seen as the immediate flashpoint of the dispute. Loya had died in December 2014 when he was hearing the case of the alleged extrajudicial killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, in which Bharatiya Janata Party chief Amit Shah was an accused.
However, the Chief Justice of India broke the glass of silence but his arguments and decisions were no more a public domain discourse. Even the four judges remained silent on what has transpired since they went public with their grievances. These points indicate a tarred image of Indian judicial system.
The case is definitely now an internal issue after the altercations it brought in the public domain but the good governance factor of transparency has blurred future in the indian democracy. The public meeting rose a quotient of introspection and heated motion of structural reform but the silence again drew the institution towards its opaqueness.