E-Paper
‘Judges should introspect on criticism of the judicial system’
Stressing the need for judicial resilience, the Supreme Court judge said the judiciary cannot be sensitive to all criticism and that it must take criticism, except that which amounted to contempt of court, in its stride.
Prefer HTon Google
Bengaluru As the Indian judiciary grapples with a tumultuous week following reports of cash being discovered at the residence of justice Yashwant Varma, Supreme Court judge Abhay S Oka on Wednesday emphasised the importance of handling criticism with maturity.
Speaking on the increasing scrutiny faced by courts and the legal system today, justice Oka said while there has always existed scope for criticism of the judiciary, earlier, such criticism took place within four walls. Today however, given the reach of media, especially, social media, such criticism is heard “clearly and loudly.”
Stressing the need for judicial resilience, the Supreme Court judge said the judiciary cannot be sensitive to all criticism and that it must take criticism, except that which amounted to contempt of court, in its stride.
Justice Oka said the judiciary, today, must reflect and introspect. It must acknowledge its flaws and deficiencies, and use all criticism to fix the issues plaguing the Indian judiciary. He said: “Today, there is so much criticism of courts and the legal system. It was always there but, it was normally, within the four walls and the corridors of the courts. Electronic and social media have brought about a major change. What was earlier said in low vices is now heard clearly and loudly. But I personally believe, we as members of the judiciary must take this criticism in our stride. We should use it to find out if we have gone wrong somewhere and take corrective measure. We should become sensitive about this criticism only when it amounts to a serious contempt.”
The judiciary must examine such criticism just to find out if it is “going wrong somewhere,” justice Oka emphasised.
The judge was speaking at an event organised by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) to mark 75 years of the Indian Constitution.
Also present at the event, were other judges of the Supreme Court, attorney general R Venkataramani, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, some senior lawyers and office bearers of SCAORA.
The current year, Justice Oka said, must be one of self-examination by the judiciary. “Are we really able to fulfil the constitutional guarantee of providing justice to citizens. The answer to this question can be found only after introspection. This year must be that of introspection and bringing about drastic changes,” he said.
Justice Oka also spoke about the imminent need to increase the strength of judges in the district as well as appellate judiciary. The judge, however, steered clear of the ongoing debate on the process of appointment of judges, with the Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar referring to the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act passed by Parliament in 2014, and that saying that things would have been different if NJAC had not been down by the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, justice Oka took a strong exception to lawyers and bar bodies abstaining from work to protest against things they do not like. He remined lawyers that the Constitution completely prohibits all unconstitutional means of protests. Lawyers abstaining from work, Justice Oka said, was not just an act that can invite contempt of court jurisdiction, but it was criminal act in itself, he said.
The controversy surrounding justice Varma erupted after a fire broke out at his official residence on Tughlak Road around 11:35 PM on March 14. Firefighters responding to the incident allegedly discovered large amounts of cash in a storeroom, some of which were charred. Justice Varma and his wife were in Bhopal at the time.
Following the incident, Delhi high court chief justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay, acting on the directive of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, withdrew judicial work from justice Varma with immediate effect on Monday morning. Later that day, the Supreme Court collegium issued a resolution recommending his transfer back to his parent high court in Allahabad. However, this transfer requires approval from the Union government.
Justice Varma has denied any wrongdoing, calling the allegations a “conspiracy to malign” him. He asserted that neither he nor his family had any knowledge of the money and dismissed the claims as “totally preposterous.”
His transfer to the Allahabad high court has sparked opposition from the Allahabad High Court Bar Association (HCBA), which has questioned whether the court is being used as a “dumping ground” for judges facing controversy.
