​If something is stated in one or two pages, people can read and understand it. Similarly, if something horrible and atrocious—against common sense and reason—is written in a hundred pages, who has the time to read and understand it? So, all these long judgments are absurd.
​Sorry to use such a strong term, but the Supreme Court judgment in Kesavananda Bharati—which many hail as the “North Star”—is absurd. I have said this many times. Before Kesavananda Bharati, if one were to go to a court, the court would ask, “Why are you here?” and you would say, “My fundamental rights are infringed.” Today, Prashant Bhushan goes to the Supreme Court and says, “My Lords, none of my rights are infringed, but the basic structure is infringed.”
​Now, the court should ask him, “Why does it matter if none of your rights are infringed? Let the basic structure collapse, let it crumble, let it be reduced to dust. Let it happen. If your grievance is that your rights are infringed, come forward and say that.”
​Therefore, it is completely absurd. The long judgments and the Kesavananda Bharati ruling are classic examples. This nonsense is taught in schools and colleges as sacrosanct, and it is referred to in courts as something sacrosanct.
​Please don’t accuse me of being sarcastic or arrogant, or of claiming that I alone know the law. No, but I need to point this out. Late Justice S.H. Kapadia had no idea what the word “actor” meant. Read his judgment in the Transcore case. The question was whether a notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act by the Indian Overseas Bank is an action or not. So the question became: What is the meaning of “action”? What is the meaning of “actor”? Nobody knew that.
​If you read that judgment, you will see that nobody knew the meaning of the word “action” or the basic distinction between the “election of forum” and the “election of remedies”—something so fundamental. A litigant can pursue all remedies unless there is an inconsistency. Situations where such an inconsistency exists are very rare. I am unable to cite many examples, but perhaps one example is specific performance versus compensation, or the restitution of conjugal rights versus divorce. It is very difficult to give many examples where there is a true inconsistency of remedies.
​So, let a plaintiff/actor have all remedies. However, there can be only one forum. Once you elect one forum, you must enforce all your remedies within that single forum; otherwise, there is no end to litigation. The judges never knew the difference or the true meaning of the word “actor”. An “actor” is simply a plaintiff—an “actor” in common law is equivalent to a “plaintiff” in equity.
​There is no need for Constitution Benches—no need for 5-judge, 7-judge, 9-judge, or 11-judge benches. This does not serve anyone; it is counterproductive. It eats up the little time that an ordinary litigant has. All Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) are dismissed with non-speaking orders. All review petitions are dismissed in chambers without a hearing. Who gets hurt? The common litigant. And who benefits? The elite legal dynasties—a few lawyers who have hijacked the system.
​They take up these Public Interest Litigations (PILs) for name and fame because these so-called PILs deal with issues concerning the public at large that are non-justiciable. Lawyers get heard for hours, the media reports on it, and ultimately it is very profitable for them—fame, name, and money at zero cost—and there is nobody to question them. I am afraid I might be the only person pointing this out. Initially, nobody understood me, and I was very often attacked. Now, at least a section of the legal fraternity understands me.
​Those who write editorials for big newspapers have no idea how the Supreme Court actually functions. Look at the classic example of the Sabarimala case: nine judges sat for 17 days. How many court hours were lost? Five benches had to be shut down.
​Without any humility, I claim to represent the first generation of lawyers, who constitute 95% of the legal fraternity. This 95% is absolutely powerless, helpless, and living a hand-to-mouth existence. They see the injustice, but they have no way to react.
​My dear friends, share this message. For any reform to happen, we must first educate the public at large.