The collision between the Judiciary and the Executive is as old as the Democracy itself. In ancient Civilisations, the power was centralized with the Ruler. Ramarajya was said to be a welfare state because Rama Himself was the dispenser of Justice.
Kautilya in Arthasastra advocated “Judges shall discharge their duties objectively and impartially so that they may earn the trust and affection of the people.” Yet in many smaller princely states, till they accessed with the Indian Union, the Rajas and the Nawabs were the highest Judges empowering themselves to award even the capital punishment.
“On October 10, Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy’s office released an explosive letter written by him to Chief Justice of India S. A Bobde. The letter, dated October 6, accused Supreme Court’s sitting judge, N. V Ramana of ’influencing the sittings of the (AP) High Court including the roster of a few honorable judges’ and cited ’instances of how matters important to Telugu Desam Party (opposition in AP) have been allocated to a few honorable judges…’ The letter complete with annexures, has also accused the state judiciary and five of its judges of ’bias…towards Telugu Desam Party and its interests, in the nature of orders passed staying investigation, staying inquiry and the rest…”.
Even as the pros and cons of the letter were being discussed both in the political and legal circles, another letter was retrieved from the National Archives of India.
This letter Dt.Nov. 4, 1961 was from the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Damodaram Sanjeevaiah to Lal Bahadur Shastri, the Union Home Minister, making certain allegations against Justice P Chandra Reddy, Chief Justice and Justices P.Satyanarayan Raju and P.J.Reddy, Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. ………”The senior-most Judge next to the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Uraamaheswaran, who is an independent and saintly person, is completely ignored and sometimes insulted in a sly fashion by keeping Justice Satyanarayana Raju in charge of the work of the Chief Justice in his absence such personal considerations are not conducive to the harmony or reputation of the High Court.”
Citing specific instances of favoritism in posting, transferring, and fixing the seniority of the District Judges, Sanjeevaiah wrote: “He never bothers about merit or honesty and his actions are guided either by influence or service and personal considerations. The whole State is groaning under his regime.”
Elaborating that his favored Judges “have vested interest in the State’, Sanjeevayya prayed: “The least that could be done is to transfer Mr. Chandra Reddi immediately. This will be also in pursuance of the recommendations of the States Reorganisation Committee to effect such transfers, particularly of pernicious elements in such high judiciary. I only look to a gentleman like you, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and the Prime Minister of India to give relief to this State and its people.” Though nothing transpired immediately, Justice Chandra Reddy was transferred to Madras High Court in 1964.
Apart from this, there are other instances of differences, dissensions, and tussle between the Judiciary and the Executive. On Nov. 9, 1967, the Communist Chief Minister of Kerala E.M.S.Namboodiripad addressed a press conference in which he was reported to have said: “Marx and Engels considered -the judiciary as an instrument of oppression and even today when the State setup has not undergone any change it continues to be so….. Judges are guided and dominated by class hatred, class interests, and class prejudices, and where the evidence is balanced between a well-dressed pot-bellied rich man and a poor ill-dressed, and an illiterate person the, judge instinctively favors the former. Election of Judges would be a better arrangement, but unless the basic state setup is changed, it could not solve the problem.”
The matter received more attention than the ordinary Press Conference and wide publicity was given. Contempt of Court proceedings was initiated in the High Court of Kerala which convicted the Chief Minister and imposed a sentence of Rs.1,000/- fine or simple imprisonment of one month.
The Chief Minister preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court. On 31st July 1970 The Chief Justice, Hidayatullah delivered the Judgement: (Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 2015, 1971 SCR (1) 697): “Mr. V. K. Krishna Menon exhorted us to give consideration to the purpose for which the statement was made, the position of the appellant as the head of a State, his sacrifices, his background, and his integrity. On the other hand, we cannot ignore the occasion (a press conference), the belief of the people in his word as -a Chief Minister, and the ready ear which many in the party and outside would have for him. The mischief that his words would cause, need not be assessed to find him guilty. The law punishes not only acts which do in fact interfere with the courts and administration of justice but also those which have that tendency, that is to say, likely to produce a particular result. Judged from the angle of courts and administration of justice, there is not a semblance of doubt in our minds that the appellant was guilty of contempt of court. Whether he misunderstood the teachings of Marx and Engels or deliberately distorted them does not serve many purposes. The likely effect of his words must be seen and they have clearly the effect of lowering the prestige of judges and courts in the eyes of the people. That he did not intend any such result may be a matter for consideration in the sentence to be imposed on him, but cannot serve as a justification. We uphold the conviction. As regards sentence we think that it was hardly necessary to impose heavy sentences. The ends of justice, in this case, are amply served by exposing the appellant’s ignorance about the true teachings of Marx and Engels (behind whom he shelters) and by sentencing him to a nominal fine. We accordingly reduce the sentence of fine to Rs. 50/-. In default of payment of fine, he will undergo simple imprisonment for one week. With this modification, the appeal will be dismissed.”
Almost a head-on collision between the Judiciary, Executive and the Legislature, in the early 1970s, preceded the Emergency (1975) and one of the reasons for its imposition. During the Emergency as was sarcastically said by L.K Advani regarding the Press: “You were asked only to bend, but you crawled.” almost applies to the Higher Judiciary also.
There are many examples. Most outstanding among them is the infamous ‘Habeas Corpus Case’. (1976 (2) Supreme Court Cases, 521). The best example of sorting out the varied opinions was demonstrated by Morarji Desai, the Chief Minister of Bombay and M.C. Chagla, the Chief Justice of the State at the infancy of Democracy.
Chagla while delivering the inaugural address of the Publishers Exhibition on 12th November 1950, was reported to have said: “In the modern and the complex society, every action of ours is controlled by some law, every minute of our living existence is spent in the conforming to or – and I hope that is very rare – contravening some rule or regulation enacted by the mighty state.”
Taking objection to this and some other comments, Morarji on 24th Nov 1950 wrote: ” ….. I also wonder whether it was necessary to qualify the ‘State’ by the word ‘mighty.’ …….. I have written this letter with great hesitation and have done so mainly because I feel very apprehensive for the future as a result of such attitude to the State Govt from the head of the Judiciary in a State where we have tried to do all that we can to run the state in as honest a manner as possible for our capacity and where we have tried to do all that we can to uphold the Rule of Law and the prestige and respect of the judiciary.”
On 25th, Nov 1950, Chagla wrote back: “I am glad you have written this letter because it clearly shows how much you dislike my being in the position that I am in, and how much you would have preferred a more docile Chief Justice.”
Desai on 26th Nov.1950 replied: “How angry you are with me and what prejudices you have regarding our policies.”
Chagla was quick, on Nov.27th, 1950: “…. May I suggest that in future we would talk over our differences? You know how welcome you are to my place. Things look very different in black and white than when they take the form of spoken words. one has the tone, the look, and the gesture to go by. in cold print there is no guidance except the words themselves.” …”We both agreed that instead of exchanging letters making notes on the files, the best way to solve administrative problems was to meet, thrash them out, and come to an immediate decision.”
“….. Morarji also resented some of the speeches I made outside the court. He thought that even on the public platform, I was criticizing laws passed by the Govt and the Govt policy which he considered was improper for someone holding the position of the Chief Justice to do so. I pointed out that although I was personally opposed to the prohibition policy of the Govt, I never said a word about it in public. Talking of prohibition in private, however, I made no secret of my hostility to that piece of legislation and said to both Kher (First Chief Minister of Bombay.) and Morarji. It became a practice that almost every Sunday or alternative Sunday Morarji would come to me and have lunch with me (Chagla would forgo his nonvegetarian meal on the day.), and after lunch, we would sit down with files which contained outstanding questions to be decided between the High Court and the Govt and in less than half an hour we had made our decisions, and the outstanding problems no longer remained outstanding.” There was an occasion when there was an exchange of letters, with differing views between Nehru and Chagla also. It had a happy finale with Chagla writing on 3rd May 1953: “May I, in the end, say how very proud we all are of our Prime Minister who has given to our country an international status, which even countries more seasoned in diplomacy may envy?” (Quotes from ROSES IN DECEMBER, Autobiography of Changla.)
Reverting to Jagan’s letter, the media, particularly the Social media is rife with gossip; varying from contempt of Court proceedings against Jagan to supersession of Justice Ramana.
It is time the Union Law Minister, Chief Justice of India, the Prime Minister, and the President take a leaf from Morarji and Chagla and intervene to set the matter right.
They must turn to archives. Brutality must go. Finer aspects of administration, in both the Judiciary and Politics, shall prevail. Persons vested with the heaviest responsibility must rise to the occasion and avoid further erosion of the values of democracy.
KC Kalkura
(KC Kalkura is an advocate from Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh)
