'Watchdog Must Bite If Barking Doesn't Work': Justice Kurian Joseph On Supreme Court's Role As Guardian Of Constitution
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph today emphasised that constitutional courts, particularly the Supreme Court, must act as watchdogs of the Constitution and intervene when constitutional vision is threatened.“The barking dog seldom bites. But this barking dog, the custodian, the watchdog, the guardian is bound to bite also if the barking does not lead to the desired...
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph today emphasised that constitutional courts, particularly the Supreme Court, must act as watchdogs of the Constitution and intervene when constitutional vision is threatened.
“The barking dog seldom bites. But this barking dog, the custodian, the watchdog, the guardian is bound to bite also if the barking does not lead to the desired result,” Justice Joseph said.
Justice Joseph was delivering the inaugural address at a seminar titled “Independence of Election Commission of India: Compromised?” organized by Indian Association of Lawyers, Keralam.
He highlighted that constitutional courts, particularly the Supreme Court, are guardians and watchdogs of the Constitution. He explained that a watchdog barks when something entrusted to its custody is threatened with purpose of alerting the owner, in this case “we the people”, to the danger.
However, he noted that there is a public perception that constitutional institutions were neither barking nor biting when faced with threats to their independence and integrity. This raises questions about whether institutions entrusted with protecting the Constitution live up to the Constitutional vision of independence and integrity, he said.
“We have heard that famous saying that the barking dog seldom bites. But this barking dog, the custodian, the watchdog, the guardian is bound to bite also if the barking does not lead to the desired result. But there is a perception that there is neither barking nor biting in such high constitutional institutions, so much so that the vision of the Constitution in respect of the independence and the integrity of those institutions who are vested with the high powers for protection of democracy, they are more breached than honoured. This is the common man's perception”, he said.
He stressed that public vigilance is essential to ensuring that constitutional authorities remained accountable and exercised their powers in accordance with their responsibilities.
Justice Joseph On Public Vigilance And Role Of Lawyers
Justice Joseph emphasised that public vigilance is an important safeguard for democracy. Referring to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia's observation that the streets would come to the rescue when Parliament and the courts failed, he said that citizens had a duty to speak out when things went wrong and to protest in an informed and civil manner.
He also emphasised the responsibility of lawyers to speak out on issues affecting democracy and constitutional governance. He said that he was pleased that members of the legal fraternity had chosen to discuss matters falling within their professional domain and educate the public.
“I always held a position that the silence of the lawmen would create more violence, more problems in society than the violence of the lawless men,” he said.
He noted that lawyers had historically come forward to protect the Constitution when democracy was in danger, irrespective of political affiliations, communal divisions or other differences. However, he expressed concern that the legal fraternity appeared divided today.
He criticised the tendency to respond to concerns raised by members of the legal fraternity by questioning the identity and background of the speaker instead of addressing the substance of the argument. Questioning this approach, Justice Joseph asked whether constitutional principles depended on who articulated them. He said that the appropriate response should be to examine what was wrong with an argument rather than target the person who made it.
“If a lawman says something wrong, nobody says or thinks about what he said rather than what is that wrong that he spoke about. But instead, a counter narrative is sought to be introduced from vested interest groups, going even to the horoscope of those speakers as to who said it. What does it mean? The constitutional vision, does it depend on who said it? Or if something goes wrong, then should we not think about what is that wrong rather than going behind those persons or going after those persons who said what is wrong”, he said.
He said that those entrusted with protecting the Constitution must remain “constitutionally objective” instead of approaching constitutional questions subjectively. He added that the credibility and integrity of constitutional institutions has been seriously shaken in public perception, making it necessary for citizens to speak out in an informed and civil manner.
“Now, the trend today, it appears to be that, to be subjectively constitutional rather than objectively, or rather than constitutionally objective. To put it right, to be constitutionally objective is the call of the protectors of the or rather the custodians or even the guardian of the Constitution of India. But the credibility of the institutions, there is a perception has been very, very grossly shaken. And that is the reason why we see in the street, as Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia said, now the street is coming to the rescue of the democracy…That is one of the fundamental duties of the citizens when that, you know, when things go wrong, they have a duty to come out in an informed way and in a civil way to protest and also take steps, protection of democracy,” he said.