Mathews J Nedumpara
98205 35428
8th March 26

Judicial corruption is an undeniable truth. Before the PIL era, the Supreme Court was confined to its legitimate role as an adjudicator of what lawyers understand as a lis — a final court of appeal. PILs, which started as pro bono litigation to make justice accessible to those denied it because of poverty, illiteracy and similar reasons (as in the cases of under-trials and bonded labour), soon assumed altogether different dimensions. The PIL petitioner became the de facto Attorney General representing the public, and the Supreme Court became the Supreme Legislature, Supreme Executive and adjudicator all at once. Parliament was reduced to a subordinate tribunal against which a writ of certiorari would lie.

“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” said Lord Acton. Matters that fall exclusively within the domain of the Executive and the Legislature became the business of the Court, leaving little time for the Court to hear SLPs and writ petitions of common citizens. SLPs are, on average, heard for just 93 seconds. Almost all are dismissed by one-line non-speaking orders.

The judges enjoy unlimited powers. Anything under the sun is justiciable. As if the mischief caused by PILs was not enough, a new avatar of PIL came into existence — suo motu PILs. For instance, Suo Motu PIL No. 1 of 2020 (In Re: Matter of Great Public Importance Touching Upon the Independence of Judiciary), in which Justice Gogoi presided over a Bench to hear the accusation of sexual harassment made against himself by a staffer.

“Mahatma Gandhi jal raha hai” — the lament of the fireman — is the image of the Indian judiciary in the minds of the common man. That image is bad indeed. It cannot be erased by brandishing the weapon of contempt of court. Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi and Rohatgi did not rush in where angels fear to tread. They did so because it was profitable to them.
As CJI Gajendragadkar observed in the Special Reference of 1964, judges ought to “deserve respect from the public at large by the quality of their judgements, the fearlessness, fairness and objectivity of their approach, and by the restraint, dignity and decorum which they observe in their judicial conduct.”

The Supreme Court found nothing contemptuous in the words of Shiv Shankar, Union Law Minister and a former High Court Judge, which I had quoted in the title of this article. On the contrary, it found that the textbook had led to the Supreme Court bleeding.

Physician, heal thyself (Cura te ipsum). That is all I can appeal to the judges of the Supreme Court.