Primi Minister Modi’s attending the Ganpati Puja at the residence of the Chief Justice of India Chandrachud has created not just a small storm in a tea cup.
The Prime Minister and the Chief Justice are being censured by a general public outcry. Concerned citizens have raised the question: Is this not a meeting of the head of the Executive and the head of the Judiciary where the integrity of the office is compromised with?
As individuals they are free to attend puja ceremonies or wedding receptions. This is a secular nation. But, at a time when the Prime Minister is censured for certain of his government’s actions verging on antisecular propensities, his attendig a religious ceremony at the residence of the judicial head is not only reprehensible but uncalled for. These are hard times. Even the judiciary has been coming under the sanner in public view. Judges resigning and joining political a parties, particularly the party that runs the government, smells something rotten. The way the government wants to select its favorites on the Election Commission or on the Enforcement Directorate has unleasehed public anger and censure. Even the government’s not favouring bail for large numbers of undertrials, including opposition party members, has political undertones.
In such volatile and combustible circumstances, the two pillars of democracy not keeping a safe and reasonable distance is justifiably questionable.
It is not surprising that a forum of ‘Concerned Citizens’ have come out with a statement that condemns the event as totally unwarranted. The form consists of IAS officers, bureaucrats, members of accredited national organisations, etc. They quote the 1997 restatement of the Honourable Spreme Court of India as a pointer:
“Justice must not merely be done but it must also be seen to be done.
The behaviour and conduct of members of the higher judiciary must
reaffirm the people’s faith in the impartiality of the judiciary.
Accordingly, any act of a Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court,
whether in official or personal capacity, which erodes the credibility of
this perception has to be avoided.”
The concerned citizens rightfully point out that the credibility of the highest Constitutional office should not be compromised with: “This assumes particular relevance in the present context when senior public functionaries of
the political executive have often been reported making hate speeches based on
religious considerations, brazenly flouting the core values of the Constitution, a member of
the higher judiciary joining a political party on the eve of elections, immediately following
his
demitting
office.” In other words , judicial credibility should be a core value. Executive’s keeping a safe distance from the judiciary is imperative. Both should realise that integrity and credibility of the office are paramount. Otherwise, the persons occupying them can take compromising positions.
The public view is that both the persons in question not only owe an explanation to the nation, but should offer an apology to the nation.
The Supreme Court Bar Association President Kapil Sibal stated that such an event should have been avoided. They should have known that it would send a wrong signal. He also said that perhaps the CJI did not think that the ceremony would be publicised.
It is not just the Chief Justice on trial, but the Prime Minister too! Very unfortunate!