Adv Fr Peter Ladis

Four senior members of the Supreme Court airs difference with the Chief Justice of India in a Press Conference, how do you look at the act?
Four senior most Judges of the Supreme Court of India approaching the People of India through the medium of Press to bring certain irregularities beyond their control raises serious questions on Democracy itself. The important cases have been entrusted with Hon’ble Judges who, perhaps, would be favourable to the government, questions the independence of Judiciary from the executives. Because in the past judges who have favoured the government have enjoyed post retirement perks.

“The administration of the Supreme Court is not in order..many less than desirable things have taken place” was the reason to go to the people via the media. The supreme court is one of the four pillars of democracy, why did they tell the people? They took an unprecedented step, is there a danger to the courts from the Government and the executive, is democracy of the country at peril?
One of the pillars of the democracy is not in order would mean that certain elements have crept in the Supreme Court that would affect the justice delivery system. When the Apex Court of the nation is in difficulty, it sounds the danger alarm to the country. The recent political developments, where a kind of hate politics is being encouraged, it is expected of the Apex Court to be vigilant to protect the Constitution of India when violated. The NDA government headed by the Hon’ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi is busy in establishing the government of its ideology throughout the country. The party uses all its personnel resources in campaign neglecting to address the pressing needs of the people. Response to the devastation by Okhi Cyclone is an example.

Thus, on the one hand the government is gathering powers in majority States and on the other hand it has successfully placed persons of its ideology on the top most posts including President and Vice-President. The party has already gathered political power. Now it looks as if it is gathering more power by having judges of the same ideology in the judicial system.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, in my opinion, the step taken by these judges is against the absolute power. We, the people of India, now will have to decide whether we need such a democracy where a kind of hate politics will rule and weaken the opposite views.

It clearly brings to the general public the malaise that plagues the system, is the credibility of the Courts at risk? Ordinary people think that the powerful and the rich can get through the system with anything, is the act of the Judges proving the anxiety that justice is becoming an illusion in the country?
Of course, the credibility of the Judiciary is at risk when we witness the helplessness of the senior most Judges of the Apex Court.

I do agree with Shri Prashant Bhushan when he says that the poor people are unable to reach up to the Supreme Court. It is very true. How many people can approach the Supreme Court if their Fundamental Rights are infringed? Can there be an easy mechanism for Art. 32, by which the rich and the poor irrespective of any discrimination can approach the court? Are the legal services authorities successful in representing the poor? Even if it is so, can we trust a system which itself has loopholes or shows favouritism?
We witness very less of good governance; it looks to me as a vengeful governance; no dissent is welcome. In the name of promises and development and fight against corruption, fundamental rights are being violated. Unemployment, poverty and the necessary steps to curtail corruption are not tendered. These are the matters the Supreme Court should keep it mind while declaring law. But the present scenario does not show that the people can expect these from the protectors of the constitution.