CJI Dipak Misra: End of a rocky stint

BY Satya Prakash

‘Just am inute…’ Everytime a lawyer raises his voice or emphasises an irrelevant point in his court, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra utters this short sentence in his inimitable style to cut him/her short.

Come October 2, one would not get to hear it again in the Supreme Court as he demits office that day as the 45th CJI after a tumultuous 13-month stint.

Given the fact that the Indian judiciary has been hitting headlines for all the wrong reasons in recent years, there is nothing unusual about controversies dogging a CJI's tenure. But the manner in which CJI Misra was embroiled in controversies — one after the other — clearly separates his stint at the helm of affairs of the Indian judiciary from those of his predecessors.

His tenure has been unprecedented in many ways. He was the first CJI to have faced an attempt for his removal. Also, he remains the only CJI to have encountered a "rebellion" by four senior-most judges over allocation of "important" cases to "junior" judges. There were other occasions too when he attracted negative media publicity. He was accused of being pro-government and of not taking a tough stand against the executive on the issue of delayed judicial appointments, particularly that of Justice KM Joseph. And, his assertion as "master of the roster" that didn't go down well with many.

But amid all this hullabaloo, Justice Misra managed to effectively deal with an assertive executive and deliver several landmark verdicts having far-reaching ramifications. Despite its abject failure in protecting citizens' basic freedoms during the Emergency, no one in his senses would question the importance of judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, in preserving, protecting and sustaining democracy in India today. The role played by the CJI as the head of the judicial family remains vital in the process. It is for this reason that the position of CJI media attention and scrutiny.

Political parties are known for mudslinging and it is acceptable to the public to a certain extent. Despite crossing the 'Lakshman Rekha' while indulging in baseless and mindless allegations, leaders across the political spectrum have generally kept it in the political arena and refrained from dragging the judiciary into it.

This unwritten code of Indian politics was broken this year and Justice Misra became a victim of a political slugfest when Congress MPs led an Opposition move to remove him on grounds that were found to be baseless and insufficient by Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu.

There were allegations that the Congress didn't want the CJI, who has been heading a three-judge Bench hearing the Ayodhya case, to decide that vexed issue as it could be exploited by the BJP for political gains. Senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal, representing one of the parties in the case, had clearly said it during one of the hearings.

The CJI's Bench is to now deliver a verdict by October 1, but not on the title suit. It will decide whether the 1994 ruling of a five-judge Bench — which ruled that mosque is not integral to Islam — needed to be referred to a larger Bench. There are other important verdicts as well. Challenge to law on adultery, legality of Aadhaar Act, restrictions on entry of women in the age group of 10-50 years and live streaming of court proceedings - verdicts in all these cases are to be delivered in the next one week.

No one can predict a judicial verdict. But going by his track record in de-criminalising homosexual acts between consenting adults in private and his verdicts refusing to ban films and books, CJI Misra is expected to take progressive stand on such issues.

Justice Misra's tenure was marked by executive assertions in judicial appointments after the Supreme Court declared the National Judicial Appointments Commission unconstitutional. The government returned many a recommendation of the collegium. He handled it well but in the process invited criticism of being pro-government.

Despite having a stormy tenure as the CJI, Justice Misra has managed to leave a mark as a liberal judge committed to basic human freedoms and ideals of democracy. He has maintained a stoic silence all these months. Will he clear the air on the allegations after October 2?