Prime Minister Modi hosted a dinner for the Chief Justice of India, all judges of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justices of all High Courts at his official residence on Saturday. This is perhaps the first time in post-independent Indian history that a Prime Minister has invited all judges of the apex court and the Chief Justices of all High Courts like this for a dinner. The precedent that has been set now will damage the basic trust that people repose in the Judiciary.
Separation of powers between the Executive and the Judiciary is a core value on which our constitutional democracy rests. It is only when one side goes wrong that the other pitches in. When a judge is found to be engaging in corrupt practices, the Parliament initiates action for his impeachment; when the executive strays from the values enshrined in the Constitution, the courts strike down the government's move. The separation of powers between the two organs is, therefore, essential for each of them to do their duty impartially.
This government has been elected to power with a historic mandate, it has a brute majority in the Lok Sabha. That it does not have the requisite numbers in the Rajya Sabha acts as a brake. But we have seen the manner in which, by bypassing the Parliament, ordinances are promulgated, and even re-promulgated. It clearly shows that the Rajya Sabha brake isn't strong enough. It has supplemented the feeling that space for dissent has been considerably reduced, and that this sort of majoritarianism is not good for the great Indian democracy.
In such an atmosphere, if a situation arises, it is only the Judiciary that can balance the government's power and act as a check. The separation of powers between the two is more important now than ever before. The Judiciary has been coming down heavily on the government for its callous attitude on certain issues, off-loading of the Greenpeace activist for instance, and the government has been trying to prove its might whenever given a chance, like on Mr Gopal Subramanium's judgeship issue. There had also been a friction between the two organs over the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). Union Minister for Law and Justice Mr Sadananda Gowda had said during an event in January instant that there would be no more appointments to the higher judiciary until the petitions in the Supreme Court challenging the NJAC were disposed off. Later, however, he informed the Rajya Sabha that the appointments would continue until the law was notified.
"Tension between the Judiciary and the Executive is a welcome sign. The so-called harmony of the two may well be at the expense of constitutional democracy itself," senior advocate and former Union Minister for Law and Justice Mr Ram Jethmalani had once said. Many from the opposition parties and the judicial circles had screamed blue murder when the Chief Justice of India praised the Prime Minister as a "good leader, good human being, and a man with foresight" during a meet with journalists. A mere utterance of what the Chief Justice had in mind about Prime Minister the person had created sort of an uproar. It was then rightly said that personal opinions of judges should not be expressed openly given the kind of impartial role that their office demands. Such actions would breed unnecessary questions in minds of people over the impartiality of a judge.
When a judge attends a function hosted by an influential person, and later when a case is adjudicated in that man's favour, it is but natural that negative motives would be attributed. It is because of this that judges lead a very insulated life in the society. One may say that judges are trained to act impartially and that therefore motives need not be attributed to such instances. But there is perception that will not let man remain silent, and perception does play a vital role. It is necessary in the interests of democracy that such perception does not take birth, and a dinner party as hosted by the Prime Minister for judges will definitely give rise to such.
Of all organs and bodies of the State, it is the Judiciary that is considered to be the least corrupt. And it is because of this that despite delay in the long process of rendering justice, people's faith in the Judiciary has remained. Also in our Constitutional setup the raison d'etre of a powerful and independent judiciary is to caution, and if necessary stop, the Executive when it does not follow the spirit of the Constitution. The government being the largest litigant in the courts, any instance of a public bonhomie between the two organs will undoubtedly raise suspicion in the minds of people. The BJP may well say that Saturday's dinner was just a casual meet, but the people may not take it that casually.
The separation of powers between the two pillars of democracy have been working well, and any action which would even make a slight impression that the separation is being depleted should be avoided. If the Prime Minister has thought that his decision to invite the judges for a dinner is a sound diplomatic move, sorry Mr Prime Minister, it will be a disaster.
The intention of the Prime Minister may be good but the message that it will send to the public will be that the Executive is now trying to woo the Judiciary, which remains the only strong body that can oppose the mighty Executive. Post-retirement appointments of judges is an issue that is being debated and such dinners would add fuel to that debate. Today it is all Chief Justices and judges of the apex court, tomorrow it could be a selected few who are invited for dinner.
The last hope was that the Chief Justice of India and all the judges who had been invited would decide to not attend the dinner, but that hope has now been killed.
