Revolt of Four Indian Judges Motives, Ethics, International Precedents and Remedies

1.INTRODUCTION

On January 12 2018, something which had never taken place in the history of India had taken place. Four Supreme Court judges, Justices Kurian Joseph, Ranjan Gogoi, J. Chelameswar, and Madan Lokur, revolted against Dipak Misra, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Through a press meet. This was a very remarkable event when considering that the Supreme court of India had only five senior judges. This revolt against the chief justice of India had taken place because four of the five senior judges in the Supreme Court alleged that the Dipak Mishra the then Chief Justice of India had been allocating some politically controversial cases to junior benches which would give favourable judgements towards a certain political party. They revolted against his arbitrary way of giving junior supreme court judge benches case and in the process going against the senior supreme court judges. The judges claimed to have written a letter to Dipak Mishra but had not received a reply for the same(1.Times of India). They claimed that the Chief Justice of India was not following established precedents in the case allocation system and thus it was adversely affecting the justice delivery system (2.Mittal). One of the main concerns raised by the senior supreme courts judges was regarding the mysterious death of Justice BH Loya who was hearing the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case which was given to a junior supreme court judge even thou all the senior supreme court judges except the then chief justice of India thought that it should be a case given to a senior judge due to its importance . Another main concern they had was regarding the medical college admission scam being sent to court no 7. After a Justice Chelemeshwar headed bench sent it to 5- judge bench himself , the CJI and justices googol, Lokur and Joseph (3.TNN / Updated: Jan 13).

2.ETHICS

The concerns raise by the judges touch upon the question of propriety within the judiciary. Propriety refers to the adherence of established principles in a certain place. It is because Judicial propriety requires one to adhere to the decisions made by the supreme court and Chief justice regardless of the personal agreement or disagreement and them coming in front of the media was a violation of judicial propriety (4.Sastry). In addition the approach of the media by the senior supreme court judges lead to the establishment of a wrong precedent to other judges. The judges claimed that their actions were right as the said that they did not have another choice since the CJI had not responded to the internal attempts of convention repeatedly. Regardless, the public disclosure of internal issues raised questions regarding the damage of the supreme courts sanctity. The incident underscores the delicate balance needed between transparency, internal dispute resolution, and upholding the judiciary's dignity.

3.Comparison with international movements like this

In Pakistan, a similar incident occurred in 2016 where a sitting Supreme Court Justice accused the countries intelligence of interfering with the countries judiciary. Justice Siddiqui alleged that the intelligence agency was manipulating judicial proceedings to Favor certain cases. This public disclosure created a significant controversy within the Pakistani judiciary and raised questions about the independence of the judiciary from external influences (5.Hassan).

In Australia, Athol Moffitt, the former President of New South Wales Court of Appeals, criticized James Wood, New South Wales Supreme Court Justice, for making public statements on the drug wars in the state of New South Wales. Justice Moffitt claimed that it was wrong for judges to venture into politically disputed areas as this risked interfering with the independence of the judiciary and public confidence on the judiciary (6.Lee, 2011).

In South Africa, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng faced criticism from some fellow judges in 2015. The public disagreement revolved around the handling of appointments within the judiciary and the alleged interference by the executive branch. Some judges expressed concerns about the Chief Justice's leadership style and the potential impact on the independence of the judiciary.

In the United Kingdom, Lord Sumption, a former justice of the Supreme Court, raised concerns in 2018 regarding the increasing judicial activism and suggested that judges were entering the political domain. While this was more of a philosophical critique than a direct revolt, it lead to discussions being made regarding the appropriate role of the judiciary in the UK's constitutional framework(7.Elliott).

4.Remedies for Non-Recurrence of Such Revolts (Conclusion)

In order to prevent similar revolts, proper procedures should be made so that the concerns of the members of judiciary are addressed. People should not criticize the judges because of their mutiny but should instead try to address their concerns. It is also very important that the government stay outside the internal conflicts of the judiciary. And if there is lesser power given to the Chief Justice of India and rather there is a spread of the power between the senior Supreme Court Judges, there would be a lesser chance of them getting influenced but the government.

Works Cited

1.India, Times Of. Dipak Misra: Four Top Judges Revolt against CJI; Supreme Court on Trial: India News - Times of India. The Times of India, Times of India, 13 Jan. 2018, timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/four-top-judges-revolt-against-cji-supreme-court-on-trial/articleshow/62480926.cms?from=mdr.(last visited 13 Jan 2024)

2. Mittal, Priyanka. Supreme Court in Turmoil after Four Judges Revolt against Chief Justice Dipak Misra. Mint, 12 Jan. 2018, www.livemint.com/Politics/kAadW0vqG6KuREJ92nd6SL/Four-Supreme-Court-judges-criticise-administration-of-countr.html. (last visited 13 JAN 2024)

3. TNN / Updated: Jan 13, 2018. Infographic: What the Rift in SC Is about: India News - Times of India. The Times of India, TOI, 2018, timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/what-the-rift-in-sc-is-about/articleshow/62475189.cms.(last visited 13 JAN 2024)

4. Sastry, V.V.L.N. Revolt of Four Indian Judges Motives, Ethics, International Precedents and Remedies. SSRN, 25 Mar. 2018, deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=105078117027006080030092085081087064030064049034070049097092107112065105065093121095050000006042010051053025099027016064017088019080035020033099123107093069121018073056062046025026093083066127092103019014106126080075003011079117126087124000012105020092EXT=pdfINDEX=TRUE.(last visited 13 JAN 2024)

5. Hassan, Sajjad. Islamabad High Court Judge Removed over Remarks against Isi. The Wire, 2018, thewire.in/south-asia/islamabad-high-court-judge-removed-over-remarks-against-isi.(last visited 13 JAN 2024)

6.Lee, H. P. (2011). Judiciaries in Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mahapatra, D. (2018, January 13). Final trigger: Rejection of demand for senior bench to hear PIL on Judge Loya's death. Times of India.(last visited 13 JAN 2024)

7.Elliott, Mark. Lord Sumption on the Limits of the Judicial Role. Public Law for Everyone, 13 Feb. 2014, publiclawforeveryone.com/2013/11/28/lord-sumption-on-the-limits-of-the-judicial-role/.(last visited 13 JAN 2024)