Ex-Judges' Letter To CJI Throws Light On Games High-Profile Lawyers Play To Influence Verdicts

Barely a month after 600 lawyers wrote to the Chief Justice of India, D Y Chandrachud, warning him about pressures to undermine the independence of the judiciary, 21 former judges of the Supreme Court and high courts have sent a missive to the same effect. 

If the first letter talked of a “vested interest group” driven by political agendas, the second one from retired judges says something similar.

Their letter notes that there are “escalating attempts by certain factions to undermine the judiciary through calculated pressure, misinformation, and public disparagement…These critics are motivated by narrow political interests and personal gains and are striving to erode public confidence in the judicial system." 

These agendas are run through a simple device. When judgements are to the liking of these vested interests, these groups praise the judiciary for its independence, and when they go against their preferences, dark statements are made about how the judiciary has been compromised or is acting under pressure. 

Here’s an example: When the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation of article 370, Prashant Bhushan, one of the lawyers who has it in for the Narendra Modi government, wrote an article not only criticising the verdict (which is acceptable), but suggested that the “Supreme Court, in this case, seems to have completely capitulated to the Central Government by first deciding that the conclusions it wanted to reach was to endorse the government’s actions. It then invented some arguments to justify those conclusions.” This is not criticism, but an assignment of motives to the bench that upheld article 370. (Italics mine)

On the other hand, when the Supreme Court struck down the electoral bonds scheme, Bhushan not only welcomed the judgment, but lauded the court for its “tough stand” in not allowing the State Bank of India time till 30 June to match donors with recipients. He wanted the bank sued for contempt for failing to meet the initial deadline for the disclosures.

Bhushan is one of those high-profile lawyers always seeking to pressure the Supreme Court through his over-the-top statements.

In August 2020, the Supreme Court held Bhushan guilty of contempt of court for two posts on Twitter (now X). One criticised the then Chief Justice, S A Bobde, for locking down the courts during Covid, when what had actually happened was that physical hearings were replaced by video conferencing. In another tweet, he alleged the judiciary had destroyed democracy in the last few years. 

A three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra held Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt, but did not go the whole hog in punishing him with jail. It imposed a token cost of Re 1 on Bhushan. He paid the penalty, but remained defiant that he did not accept the verdict. 

Nor is Bhushan the only one using the kind of tactics alleged by the retired judges in their letter to the CJI. Dushyant Dave is another. He has, in the past, accused the Supreme Court of becoming “majoritarian”, and that the Supreme Court is afraid of (Narendra) Modi.

Kapil Sibal has accused the judiciary of bias. It seems even experienced lawyers cannot differentiate between criticism and contempt.

Former Supreme Court justice J Chelameswar indirectly pointed out in an interview to The Economic Times some time ago that high-priced Supreme Court lawyers were part of the problem.

When asked about judicial corruption, he replied: “Justice (JS) Verma made a statement, Justice (PS) Bharucha (both former CJIs) made a statement, but did anything happen in this country? None of these ‘Rs 1 crore per day lawyers’ spoke up. They have appeared before all the judges whom they condemned subsequently. So, what's the point talking about it?”

The Supreme Court has many faults, and needs a thorough overhaul, but what it does not need is a bunch of high-profile and powerful lawyers using politically-motivated praise and criticism to influence verdicts. If they can one day accuse judges of being corrupt or compromised, and the next day they come back to plead before the same judge, what does it say about their own ethics?