Ever since news appeared that Union government was contemplating appointing former Chief Justice P Sathasivam as Governor of Kerala, a spate of comments, rather adverse, began to appear in the press. Questions were rightly raised as to the propriety and also the dignity of the office of Chief Justice of India being compromised by accepting this appointment.
I do not mind confessing that I was deeply distressed because some judgments of Justice Sathasivam a year or so before his retirement did give cause for faith in judiciary. His bold decision to direct the implementation of Election Commission’s recommendation to introduce the “None of the Above” option as a ballot choice showed his broad look, considering that both Bharatiya Janata Party and Congress had been opposing it for over a decade.
Justice Sathasivam also showed his humanitarian streak when he boldly commuted the death penalty of Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar in the 1993 Delhi bomb blast case on the grounds of inordinate delay in carrying out the sentence. The Supreme Court no doubt had been dealing with the matter but there was a mixed soup – he at least boldly took lead in clarifying the matter.
Some disappointment
So I was disappointed when Justice Sathasivam went public seeking to justify his decision. My first reaction was to keep silent because to me the judiciary is an invaluable asset in a democracy and one should be cautious in one's criticism. But now that Justice Sathasivam has finally accepted the assignment, it is no longer possible to remain silent, rather it is moral duty to speak. I plead in my defence, the words of Justice Holmes of the United States Supreme Court, who said, “I trust that no one will understand me to be speaking with disrespect of the law because I criticise it so freely…But one may criticise even what one reveres…and I should show less than devotion, if I did not do what in me lies to improve it.”
The Congress party in its opposition has crossed all decent limits. It accused the BJP government of returning a favour in exchange to having received a decision in the case of Amit Shah. Chief Justice Sathasivam was appointed Chief Justice during the Congress’ United Progressive Alliance regime. Does the Congress suggest that it appointed Sathasivam because it hoped to get favourable orders from him? How disgusting is the conclusion?
The opposition to Sathasivam being appointed governor is on larger grounds of public interest, of separation of the Executive and the Judiciary. But in putting on a saint-like attitude, the Congress is hypocritical when in reality it must bear the blame of original sin.
Examples of the Congress polluting judiciary are legion. In 1949, the Chief Justice of Punjab was Dewan Ram Lal. He was a personal friend of Nehru. Immediately on his retirement, Nehru appointed him the Indian ambassador to Italy. It was considered so routine that when Chief Justice SR Das, who was taking over from Chief Justice Ram Lal in Punjab High Court, met Pandit Nehru in Delhi before proceeding to Simla, where at that time the High Court was situated, Pandit Nehru told him without any embarrassment to tell Ram Lal that he need not worry, because the orders for his appointment as ambassador would be issued soon. The distance that should prevail between Executive and Judiciary had not been established.
Perhaps at that time Pandit Nehru’s personality was such that the bona fides of the government were not easily doubted. But now, one has to face the fact that manoeuvring in politics is a reality. So without any embarrassment, Congress appointed M Fathima Beevi as governor of Tamil Nadu after she retired as a Supreme Court judge. Congress also followed this practice when it nominated Chief Justice of India Ranganath Mishra to Rajya Sabha – it never offered any explanation for breaching the distance between executive and judiciary.
But of course that in no way justifies the BJP breaching this accepted convention whatsoever.
I feel that Sathasivam should have declined the appointment. A high office carries within itself certain compulsions.
In sensitivity to public opinion and correct precedent, let me give an example. In the mid-1950s, a politician was appointed governor of Andhra Pradesh. The Nizam of Hyderabad, though bereft of political power, still held his domain of private properties and trusts. The Nizam’s exclusiveness was such that he had refused to receive Pandit Nehru at the airport when he went to Hyderabad immediately after the takeover of Hyderabad India. The Nizam never called on the governor during his tenure of five years. The governor also never called on the Nizam.
An independent offer
The governor, after retirement in 1962, came back home. Thereafter he received a letter at his home from the Nizam on his personal letter paper, inviting him to be a trustee of some of the Nizam’s several trusts “for the benefit of the members of my family and for other religious charitable purpose”. He offered membership of one of the trusts to the governor “on a monthly allowance of Rs. 3,000 plus travelling expenses for visiting Hyderabad for meeting of the trust”. (At that time, Rs. 3,000 was not a small amount: it was the monthly salary of a High Court judge).
The Nizam wrote, “I am making this offer on my own accord as I was much impressed by your popularity as governor of Andhra Pradesh, and the manner in which you maintained the dignity of that office.” The Governor declined the offer because, according to him, if he accepted the offer it might give rise to gossip that he got the trusteeship by being unduly friendly to the Nizam.
I am giving this example because even if the governor had accepted this offer, it would not have been considered a transgression. But a healthy convention of public morality would have been lost. I feel Chief Justice Sathasivam will have to bear a cross for permitting the judiciary to be slandered by small-time politicians who are engaged in their petty manoeuvring.
Let the BJP not learn this bad lesson. For democracy, a healthy distance between the executive and judiciary is essential.
Rajindar Sachar is a former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
I do not mind confessing that I was deeply distressed because some judgments of Justice Sathasivam a year or so before his retirement did give cause for faith in judiciary. His bold decision to direct the implementation of Election Commission’s recommendation to introduce the “None of the Above” option as a ballot choice showed his broad look, considering that both Bharatiya Janata Party and Congress had been opposing it for over a decade.
Justice Sathasivam also showed his humanitarian streak when he boldly commuted the death penalty of Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar in the 1993 Delhi bomb blast case on the grounds of inordinate delay in carrying out the sentence. The Supreme Court no doubt had been dealing with the matter but there was a mixed soup – he at least boldly took lead in clarifying the matter.
Some disappointment
So I was disappointed when Justice Sathasivam went public seeking to justify his decision. My first reaction was to keep silent because to me the judiciary is an invaluable asset in a democracy and one should be cautious in one's criticism. But now that Justice Sathasivam has finally accepted the assignment, it is no longer possible to remain silent, rather it is moral duty to speak. I plead in my defence, the words of Justice Holmes of the United States Supreme Court, who said, “I trust that no one will understand me to be speaking with disrespect of the law because I criticise it so freely…But one may criticise even what one reveres…and I should show less than devotion, if I did not do what in me lies to improve it.”
The Congress party in its opposition has crossed all decent limits. It accused the BJP government of returning a favour in exchange to having received a decision in the case of Amit Shah. Chief Justice Sathasivam was appointed Chief Justice during the Congress’ United Progressive Alliance regime. Does the Congress suggest that it appointed Sathasivam because it hoped to get favourable orders from him? How disgusting is the conclusion?
The opposition to Sathasivam being appointed governor is on larger grounds of public interest, of separation of the Executive and the Judiciary. But in putting on a saint-like attitude, the Congress is hypocritical when in reality it must bear the blame of original sin.
Examples of the Congress polluting judiciary are legion. In 1949, the Chief Justice of Punjab was Dewan Ram Lal. He was a personal friend of Nehru. Immediately on his retirement, Nehru appointed him the Indian ambassador to Italy. It was considered so routine that when Chief Justice SR Das, who was taking over from Chief Justice Ram Lal in Punjab High Court, met Pandit Nehru in Delhi before proceeding to Simla, where at that time the High Court was situated, Pandit Nehru told him without any embarrassment to tell Ram Lal that he need not worry, because the orders for his appointment as ambassador would be issued soon. The distance that should prevail between Executive and Judiciary had not been established.
Perhaps at that time Pandit Nehru’s personality was such that the bona fides of the government were not easily doubted. But now, one has to face the fact that manoeuvring in politics is a reality. So without any embarrassment, Congress appointed M Fathima Beevi as governor of Tamil Nadu after she retired as a Supreme Court judge. Congress also followed this practice when it nominated Chief Justice of India Ranganath Mishra to Rajya Sabha – it never offered any explanation for breaching the distance between executive and judiciary.
But of course that in no way justifies the BJP breaching this accepted convention whatsoever.
I feel that Sathasivam should have declined the appointment. A high office carries within itself certain compulsions.
In sensitivity to public opinion and correct precedent, let me give an example. In the mid-1950s, a politician was appointed governor of Andhra Pradesh. The Nizam of Hyderabad, though bereft of political power, still held his domain of private properties and trusts. The Nizam’s exclusiveness was such that he had refused to receive Pandit Nehru at the airport when he went to Hyderabad immediately after the takeover of Hyderabad India. The Nizam never called on the governor during his tenure of five years. The governor also never called on the Nizam.
An independent offer
The governor, after retirement in 1962, came back home. Thereafter he received a letter at his home from the Nizam on his personal letter paper, inviting him to be a trustee of some of the Nizam’s several trusts “for the benefit of the members of my family and for other religious charitable purpose”. He offered membership of one of the trusts to the governor “on a monthly allowance of Rs. 3,000 plus travelling expenses for visiting Hyderabad for meeting of the trust”. (At that time, Rs. 3,000 was not a small amount: it was the monthly salary of a High Court judge).
The Nizam wrote, “I am making this offer on my own accord as I was much impressed by your popularity as governor of Andhra Pradesh, and the manner in which you maintained the dignity of that office.” The Governor declined the offer because, according to him, if he accepted the offer it might give rise to gossip that he got the trusteeship by being unduly friendly to the Nizam.
I am giving this example because even if the governor had accepted this offer, it would not have been considered a transgression. But a healthy convention of public morality would have been lost. I feel Chief Justice Sathasivam will have to bear a cross for permitting the judiciary to be slandered by small-time politicians who are engaged in their petty manoeuvring.
Let the BJP not learn this bad lesson. For democracy, a healthy distance between the executive and judiciary is essential.
Rajindar Sachar is a former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.
