The Curious Case of Chief Justice Sharad Arvind
25.4.2021 — Mohak Doshi
Sharad Arvind Bobde’s tenure as the 47th Chief Justice of India (CJI) reached its culmination on 23 April 2021. His 17-month stint as the apex judge at the apex court raised more than normal amount of eyebrows among the legal experts and scholars in the country. Lets cover some statistics first, he wrote 68 judgments as judge on the Supreme Court. However, he sat on the bench for 547 cases.
Taking over the baton from Ranjan Gogoi, Mr. Sharad had the responsibility of improving the image of the legal system in India, which was on an all time low among the general public. These 17 months, from assuming office to his demit, involved countless controversies and a massive overshadow thanks to the pandemic. A significant amount of his rulings (also taking into account the cases with lack of merit) and reluctance to take suo motu cognisance of cases for the welfare of general public sent shockwaves across the country. The best example to support this is his remarks during Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, the PIL regarding the migrant crisis which was triggered by an untimely, highly mismanaged and a disastrous lockdown decision by the Central Govt. He asked, “If they are being provided meals why do they need money for meals?” I couldn’t possibly comment on this statement of his.
Siddique Kappan, a journalist who was arrested by the UP Police while covering the Hathras case got his bail much later than it is expected from any court in this country for a case of this gravitas. Interestingly, his highness Arnab Goswami who was arrested in an abetment for suicide case which was overlooked by the Bombay HC, was given an instant bail with the direct intervention of the SC headed by Mr. Sharad himself. CJI said ‘every case is different’, he’s right there’s now way one could draw parallels between a journalist and Mr. Goswami.
In a few statements made by him, the CJI reflects a lack of compassion towards women and the lower working class. While presiding over a case of assault, he reportedly asked the accused to ‘marry’ the victim. He commented during the farm laws protest that women and elders should head back to their native places and not take part in such activities. The SC also stayed the horrendous order given by Bombay HC Justice Pushpa Ganediwala, in the pretext of setting wrong precedent. The SC continued to not go against state HC orders in several other cases, a few involving covid situation. Nevertheless, in the latest ruling, the SC has decided to hear all cases regarding the covid situation as the state HCs were ‘creating confusion’.
Mr. Sharad landed himself in trouble while posing with a flagship bike model, without a mask and a helmet in June 2020 which apparently did/did not belong to a BJP MLAs son. The link couldn’t be ignored, to which Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan made remarks about how a CJI having links to a ruling party makes the judiciary look feeble. He was slapped with contempt in regards to this and a couple of other tweets by him. Mr. Bhushan ended up paying Rs.1 to the court as fine.
Article 370 and the introduction of CAA/NRC saw nearly 140 petitions filed in the court, they were heard for a record 3 times in totality with no of them being given a decision. The same was the case for suspension of internet in J&K. The court constantly distanced itself from hearing cases on Article 32, descried by B.R. Ambedkar as ‘heart’ and ‘soul’ of the Constitution.
Dushyant Dave in ‘A Court in Crisis’, talks about how the SC is expected to seek strict accountability from the legislature and executive and any infraction of the Constitution and laws must be corrected. Yet, this is not happening. “The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.” He quotes Shibban Lal Saxena saying that the judiciary is engaged in deciding the issue between citizens and very rarely between citizens and the Government. Consequently, the chances of influencing the conduct of a member of the judiciary by the Government are very remote.
The collegium’s striking trend of hearing cases and acting in a manner sympathetic to the Central Govt is a matter of grave concern. Pratap Bhanu Mehta in ‘Their Lordships & Masters’ talks about judicial barbarism. How this trend of SC in the cases of electoral bonds, where donors of pol bonds above a certain amount enjoy the privilege of being anonymous is blasphemous. Not just a case in many, but in several instances mentioned above, this is a new low for judiciary’s freedom against oppression from the govt.
What Mr. Sharad failed to do, as I mentioned above about gaining back the public’s trust for the legal system can be seen in his failure to improve the gender equality deficit state of the bench. The ratio of women to men in HCs is 81:1078. No female CJI till date, which he could’ve changed. Not to mention the tremendous backlog of cases, a record 57 lakh cases were pending as of 2 days ago when a new ad-hoc of judges was introduced. Maybe a parting gift by Mr. Sharad.
However, the most unanticipated outcome is the one we saw recently when there were no appointments made by the collegium convened by the CJI over judges in the Supreme Court. Usually, the number is around 4–5 and this situation of 0 appointments arose due to a ‘deadlock’ in the collegium. India could’ve had its own Justice Ginsburg, a women CJI. But an absence of recommendation by a collegium headed by the CJI has serious implications concerning the legacy of a Chief Justice. Nonetheless, as of now we welcome Justice N.V. Ramana as our 48th CJI.
On his last day at the office, ”I leave with the satisfaction that I did my best,” CJI Bobde said.
“I hand over the baton to Justice Ramana who will, I am sure, very ably lead the court,” he added. A conquest for a better and efficient legal system thus continues, with optimism fuelled by a new CJI.
