Political Roots

The silence of the government on the memorandum of procedures finalised by the Supreme Court and the alleged arbitrary assignment of cases is at the core of the controversy dogging the judiciary.

- Venkitesh Ramakrishnan

“WE HAVE TRIED OUR BEST, NOW WE ARE placing it before the nation. This is integral to the survival of our democracy.” These words, uttered by Justice J. Chelameswar during the “extraordinary” press conference held in New Delhi on January 12 by him and three other senior judges of the Supreme Court, underscored the political dimensions of the unprecedented development in the Indian judiciary. Indeed, the debate that followed the judges’ engagement with the public has focused primarily on the implications it has specifically on the institution of the Supreme Court and the judiciary as a whole. But their invocation of as powerful a phrase as “integral to survival of our democracy” has deep political significance. A closer look at the institutional factors that impelled the judges to this unusual public appearance and the larger political context in which this has unravelled points towards multifarious political dimensions. These range from fundamental questions relating to India’s democratic polity, at both systemic and practical levels, to a number of realpolitik machinations and manoeuvres, in which top political leaders, including Amit Shah, the president of the Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP), the ruling party at the Centre, are apparently involved.

SOHRABUDDIN ENCOUNTER CASE