JUSTICE VS JUDICIARY (2019) By Sudhanshu Ranjan, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, Price Rs. 995

The telos of any written constitution, in the ontological sense is seen in articulation of devices which controls the power of various organs of the state. No organ/instrumentality of the State is expected to exercise a power beyond what is approved by the Constitution. The Constitution is supreme and all the authorities including the judiciary shall confirm to this supreme law of the land which manifests the permanent will of the people. Traditionally, the judiciary was understood to be the least dangerous branch of the state but this is no longer true. Judiciary now wields more powers than it was conferred on by the Constitution. There is clear and convincing evidence that power of the courts has increased worldwide in the last few decades and Indian judiciary has been a frontrunner in this race. This judicial power which has witnessed an extraordinary expansion has gone beyond anything that drafters of the constitution even could have imagined. However, judiciary has emerged as one the only institution which is virtually not accountable to the Constitution but relishes exceptional constitutional privileges and arduous artillery to silence the any critic. The book Justice vs Judiciary by Mr. Sudhanshu Ranjan conquests market at a time when judiciary especially the constitutional courts are going through a crisis of credibility. Ranjan's book is timely because it takes up the obstinate stiffness between the desire for judicial independence and evasion of judicial accountability. A veteran journalist, prolific author and columnist, Mr. Sudhanshu tries to bring the critical perspective to bear on this polarizing debate. The author discourses certain scintillating paradoxes with respect to the working of the institution and sheds light on contemporary judicial and moral conundrums. In the first paradox, author argues that the Supreme Court which tried to keep a constant check over every other organ/institution/body under the Constitution failed to apply similar method of accountability to its own functions. How a judge is appointed in the High Court or elevated to the Supreme Court, how is a judge appointed as the Chief Justice of a High Court and how and when a judge is transferred from one High Court to another high court? Whether the views of the consultee-judges are given due weightage by the collegium? The simple answer is, the public does not know anything about it even after twenty-five years of such a mechanism in practice. The reason has been the Judiciary's double-moral attitude towards right to information, despite its preaching, how vital is the citizen's right to know, how its public institutions are functioning. The decisions of the Supreme Court directing that the Chief Information Commissioner must only be a former judge of the Supreme Court or a retired chief justice of the High Court and other judicial members must be amongst the former judges of the high courts was a clear intrusion into the legislative domain [ page 38]. Lifting president's rule for few hours, sending Sahara Chief Mr. Subrata Roy jail without FIR, contradictory and declining quality of judgements (p.68) and rising corruption (p.103) etc. are blatant examples, which corrodes the public trust in the institution. Author appropriately argued that judicial independence and judicial accountability are not antagonistic but rather complementary and suggest various measures to ensure accountability. The second chapter of the book entitled "Binary Application of Laws" describes another glaring paradox in the decision-making process where guardian of the fundamental rights itself dilutes the cardinal principles of judicial decision making i.e. neutrality, uniformity and predictability. Author contends that laws, more often than not, have been applied in such a way as to favour the "privilegentsia" which defy logic and reason. In case of former Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao, the court practically nullifying the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, directed that he would not be arrested even if his bail petition was rejected by the lower court. Another glaring example was cited where court demonstrated a rare magnanimity in favour of Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav, when two separate benches of the Supreme Court were available to hear Lalu's bail application. When thousands of undertrials are languishing in different jails for years and decades for want of hearing, and it takes several weeks, even months for an ordinary bail petition to be listed for hearing, the generosity of the court in favour of privileged class raises serious doubt on the rule of law. The book records the cases where the Supreme Court has acknowledged the principle that even the humblest citizen of the land, irrespective of his station in life, is entitled to present his case with dignity and is entitled to be heard with courtesy and sympathy. But these magniloquent...

JUSTICE VS JUDICIARY (2019) By Sudhanshu Ranjan, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, Price Rs. 995

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags