New Delhi: An open letter by a group of lawyers – including prominent establishment figures – ostensibly seeking to safeguard the judiciary from ‘political and professional pressure’ may have received Prime Minister Modi’s endorsement but other members of the bar see it as a thinly veiled attack on the Chief Justice of India and the very idea of judicial independence.
The letter, written today (March 28), and addressed to the CJI, attacks an unidentified ‘vested interest group’ for “trying to pressure the judiciary, influence judicial process and defame our courts on the basis of frivolous logic and stale political agendas.” “Their antics are vitiating the atmosphere of trust and harmony, which characterises the functioning of the judiciary. Their pressure tactics are most obvious in political cases, particularly those involving political figures accused of corruption” and “are damaging to our courts and threaten our democratic fabric.”
“It’s troubling to see some lawyers defend politicians by the day, and then try to influence judges through the media at night,” they wrote.
The signatories to the letter include Harish Salve, Manan Kumar Mishra, Adish Agarwala and Pinky Anand. Agarwala was recently in the news for seeking President Droupadi Murmu’s intervention to prevent the Supreme Court from making the details of electoral bond purchases and redemptions public.
Either by design or default, Modi soon waded in with a tweet in which he identified the ‘vested interests’ with the opposition Congress party:
To browbeat and bully others is vintage Congress culture.
5 decades ago itself they had called for a “committed judiciary” – they shamelessly want commitment from others for their selfish interests but desist from any commitment towards the nation.
No wonder 140 crore Indians… https://t.co/dgLjuYONHH
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) March 28, 2024
Advertisement
The Wire spoke to prominent lawyers and former judges about their response to the open letter.
C.U. Singh: An ‘attempt to bring judiciary to heel’
Calling it a “classic playbook of the autocratic,” senior advocate Chandar Uday Singh said: “Hitler and the Nazis discredited independent lawyers and brought the judiciary to heel in similar manner, and they too had an eminence grise leading the charge on their behalf.”
“The new rules of professional ethics established by the Bar mandated an ethical duty of all lawyers to show unwavering support for Hitler and his policies in both professional and personal contexts. These rules would be enforced by a new Court of Honor, which operated under the authority of the German Supreme Court as the final arbiter of professional conduct and discipline. Lawyers were penalized, and even disbarred, if they deviated from loyalty to the Nazi agenda in their personal or professional lives. For example, one lawyer was disciplined for refusing to return the Nazi salute in court on the grounds that the lawyer’s failure to salute diminished the public’s confidence in the legal system.
Justice M.B. Lokur: ‘An attack on the CJI’
According to Justice Madan B. Lokur (retired), “The letter writers are indirectly attacking the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.”
“I believe, the letter is targeting some lawyers (easily identifiable) who are doing their utmost to preserve and protect the independence and integrity of the judiciary. These identifiable lawyers are echoing concerns occasionally voiced by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. The Hon’ble Chief Justice recently said that judges at the grassroots are reluctant to grant bail not because they don’t understand crime, but there is a sense of fear of being targeted. It is this fear articulated by the Hon’ble Chief Justice that is sought to be removed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice and the identifiable lawyers,” Justice Lokur said, adding that “the letter writers have clearly misunderstood the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and the easily identifiable lawyers.”
“It is this fear that invites unsolicited comments about our justice delivery system from countries like Germany and the USA,” he said..
Anjana Prakash: Letter-writers think so lowly of judiciary
“In my opinion, ironically, the tenor of the letter is exactly what it is complaining about!,” said Anjana Prakash, a former judge of the Patna high court who is now a pracising lawyer in the Supreme Court. “I am surprised such eminent lawyers think so lowly of the judiciary. I would think it is contemptuous to suggest our judges decide cases not as per law, but on account of anything else, but the law.” Calling the letter a “misguided missile”, Prakash said the letter writers were evidently not fair in their criticism. “The terms used [in the letter] are neither befitting of the eminence of the writers nor of the lawyers it is targettng. It saddens me that such concerted efforts are being made to undermine the sincerity of the lawyers who are committed to the cause of justice,” she said.
“That such a letter has been sent soon after the SC’s judgment and directions in the Electoral Bond case is significant.,” said R. Vaigai, senior counsel, Madras high court. “Coming as it does at a time when the highest court is poised to hear critical issues concerning the survival of our democracy like the cases concerning the use of EVMs, the Ctizenship (Amendment) Act matter or the arrest of various voices of dissent in politics, civil society and the media, the letter is a clear pointer to whose interests the signatories represent,” she added. “In effect they do not want the Supreme Court to perform its constitutional duty to the people of India.”
Navroz Seervai, Nitya Ramakrishnan: Judiciary capable of looking after itself
Senior advocate from Mumbai Navroz Seervai told The Wire, “I have read with alarm, but also a good bit of amusement, the statement made by 600 lawyers, with Mr. Harish Salve at the forefront, ostensibly out of concern for the Indian Judiciary and alleged attempts to undermine its integrity.”
“Acknowledging tough times, these worthies seem to forget that the defence of persons is both a duty and a prerogative, where personal opinions are secondary,” said Nitya Ramakrishnan, senior advocate.
“One need not stoop to enumerate those defended by some of the signatories. And the judiciary – which is meant to defend the people, especially the marginalised – is being asked by them to protect itself first, thus displaying a singular lack of faith in the institution.”
