Herald View: If we don’t defend impeachment now, then when? 

Several legal eagles have gone on record to say that it is foolish to have moved for the impeachment of the Chief Justice of India. The move, they have argued, should never have been made. It would not have succeeded, they point out, first because the opposition do not have numbers in Parliament and then because the process is so long-drawn that the CJI would retire long before the process could be completed.

None of them of course sees any ‘political motive’ behind the ruling coalition’s solidarity with the CJI and opposition to impeachment. But the motion for impeachment, they are certain, was driven by politics. Indeed, the Congress has been accused of making the move because it is afraid of a potentially polarising judgment in the Ayodhya title suit before the next general election. These jurists seem to have a measure of the straws in the wind and concluded that the Supreme Court would deliver a verdict that would satisfy the agenda of the ruling coalition. Indeed, the alacrity with which the CJI picked up the case and insisted on hearing it himself did create the impression that he wanted to give a verdict before he retires in October this year. Why else would a CJI, with a short, 13-month tenure, decide to hear such an old and contentious issue? Surely there are other equally old and pending cases that deserve his attention?

The widespread suspicion that the CJI had made up his mind to give a final ruling in the case was strengthened by the CJI’s rejection of pleas that the hearing be deferred till after the general election that is barely a year away. Eminent lawyers who do not see any political motive in the CJI fast-tracking the controversial case, have been quick to conclude that the move to impeach the CJI is ‘politically motivated’. Another argument offered against the move is that the exercise is bound to shake public confidence in the judiciary and for that reason alone, the exercise is irresponsible.

It cannot however be the case of even die-hard status-quoists that all is right with the Supreme Court of India. Nor can they possibly deny that the charges against the CJI are arguably a lot more serious than mentioned in any other motion of impeachment moved in the last 68 years.

Indeed, the motion against CJI Dipak Misra is the first such motion which raises concerns with his administrative and judicial conduct. All other judges impeached till now were accused of financial misconduct. But Justice Misra is largely accused of failure to discharge his duty and maintain order in the apex court. These are charges levelled first by the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. The four judges are on record saying that democracy is in peril and that independence of the judiciary is under threat. It is precisely because the Government, media and the civil society have ignored the concerns raised by the Justices that it became imperative to move for the CJI’s impeachment.

Had the CJI been able to carry his colleagues with him, if he had put his foot down to brazen interference in the judiciary by the Government and if he had shown an inclination to listen to grievances of the bar and the bench, there possibly would have been no reason to move for impeachment. Contrary to the belief of some of the legal eagles, the motion of impeachment shows nothing to link the charges to any judgment delivered by the CJI and certainly not the controversial ruling by the bench headed by the CJI in the Judge Loya case. In fact, it is the CJI himself who ought to be held responsible for the crisis in view of his pronouncements, priorities, omissions and commissions.

Public confidence in the judiciary is already shaken. And the least the establishment should have allowed is an inquiry into the charges. Allowing the drift in the judiciary is no longer an option.