Indian opposition parties have almost come together to impeach the Chief Justice of their country. Before that the learned senior judges of the Indian Supreme Court had come out to the public opposing the allocation of judges by their Chief Justice, Mr Mishra. Both the incidents have not only hurt the international reputation of India, they have hurt the prestige of the institution, which has the last word in conviction of the guilty and whose members are spoken of as honourable judges. Why are the incidents so disgraceful? Let us take the first one: India has not quite met the standard aired by 'Justice delayed is justice denied' and a husband accused of asking dowry long time ago ended his life in the court of law recently, because of that very delay. Although, the other ideal 'innocent till proven guilty' is still talked about, in combination with the delay, its media have not only made hay when the sun shined- by proving any one guilty before a verdict, they even have made the sun shine long enough to bring about the title 'prestitutes'. In that country, like the organization for doctors, the judiciary, not been divinely ordained, also has a organising authority. It deals with any kind of grievance in the legal fraternity. In addition to the above while India also knows the Shakes pier's dialogue 'unease lies that wears the crown' bharat knows as is the king so are the people. Despite all the weakness, like the army in Pakistan and the Indian election commission, Indians at least said we believe in the Indian justice system. In this scenario the so far respected 4 supreme court justices did not like their chief justice allocating judges in sensitive cases including the judge for the court that was deciding on the BJP president Anil Shah. They suddenly did a news conference and complained about that action of the Chief Justice. That was neither intelligent thing to do nor was it right. 1. The accusation against the CJ was subjective - what they felt was wrong not what was actually wrong. 2. They did not use the established system of grievances organisation. 3. Instead they came and washed their dirt linens in the public. With them proving the CJ already guilty, not going through properly channels, the not only degraded themselves or became tool of political modification but they disgraced the faith on the legal system as well. A house in quarrel is never respected that is why it is said don't wash your dirty linen in front of the people. The four wise men did just that. That too for a single discontent - not multitude of discontent over the years and levelled it as saving democracy!! In the process they not only lessened the prestige of the judiciary, that is supposed to be reliance on beyond reasonable doubt but they forfeited their future career of becoming the chief justice too. Impeachment: Although that was seen as clandestinely galvanised by the Congress Party and its chief Rahul Gandhi, the application for impeachment of the Chief Justice itself now proves that the Congress Party was indeed behind the first move too. In any case, first of all impeachment can only be done to a person, who cannot be removed from his/her post by another authority figure like in the case of President of a country. Here CJ can be removed by the President. So it is a case of removal not impeachment. Secondly, if there were unresolved issues Mr Mishra had done earlier, why was he allowed to be the Chief Justice of India in the first place? That is not an ordinary but a sacrosanct position - the final word in its justice system. Even if the accusation was 'It was done by the BJP', how did the legal fraternity accept him and worked under him for so long? He has climbed his way up through stringent checks in every hurdle. Surely a corrupt judge at any level is bad for the justice system. Thirdly, the CJ is retiring in 6 months. So what is the benefit of ditching him few months earlier? What will the earlier removal of CJ do to the Indian justice system? Whatever has happened that is not helping the prestige of India in the international scene. How will the sacking help in bringing about prestige for the struggling country? What will happen to the prestige of the judiciary in India itself? Will not the judiciary be seen as corrupt; and therefore justice always is seen as denied? Fourthly, while the congress itself is divided on the issue, its henchmen - other political parties - are trying to find unity where there is none. The rejection of their unified application by the vice president did not only mean a wild goose chase for them, it meant their lack of knowledge of the legal system, henchmanship and lack of concern for India's prestige. Fifthly, this has compromised the independence of judiciary and created an unpleasant precedence that almost makes the judiciary under the politicians. Indian judiciary has, in fact, been stabbed from inside by the four senior judges and from outside by this coterie. India is rapidly becoming an international figure. Indians, especially ones in responsible posts have to behave that way. Yes Modi is trying hard, but for India to progress rapidly, he has to look at the 3rd pillar of India's democracy. ------------ PLEASE COMMENT AT BLOG SITE

Slow Justice

Four against one

Four senior judges washing dirty linen