judicial system

As judicial crisis continues, debate bubbles up: Should the justices have gone to the press?

The judiciary has a tradition of silence, at least beyond the bench, which has now been broken.

Even as people are struggling to fully comprehend the meaning of Friday’s unprecedented development, with four top Supreme Court justices telling the media the Chief Justice of India had refused to address a crisis, a debate sprung up that was central to the matter at hand: Should the judges have gone to the press?

Supreme Court justices rarely every address the media directly. Norms in both the Supreme Court and the High Courts suggest that any comments need to be made from behind the bar and, if there is the odd case of a response directly to the media, the Chief Justice needs to first give permission. It is even rarer for judges to speak openly about internal processes. These norms made Friday’s media briefing, with four of the five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court sitting before a host of cameras and reporters and speaking directly to the people of the nation, truly extraordinary.

There has already been plenty of debate over the substance of the accusations being levelled against the Chief Justice. According to the four judges, Chief Justice Dipak Misra has in the last few months, arbitrarily decided how to assign cases to different benches in a manner that has raised serious questions and, as per their letter, damaged the reputation of the court.

But alongside that argument about content has been the question of form. Even if the four judges had a valid point to make, should they have gone to the media at all?

Against speaking to press

A few former judges and lawyers have come out against the four justices’ decision to take the matter to the media and the public. The general argument is that airing the Supreme Court’s dirty laundry in public will only lower the estimation of the institution in the people’s eyes and thereby do long-lasting damage to its reputation.

This school of thought goes by the belief that there were other approaches, which would have channeled the dissent internally, that could have been taken instead of speaking to the press. Former judge RS Sodhi and former attorney general Soli Sorabjee both took this tack, with Sodhi even calling for the four judges to be impeached.

For speaking to the press

Many lawyers and former judges have spoken up in support of the four justices. Their arguments primarily take the view that, though speaking to the public is not a good move, the need must have been so compelling that the four justices felt they would get more from taking the matter to the press than simply complaining to the Chief Justice one more time.

In some cases, a few more directly involved with the matter at hand – like Indira Jaising and Prashant Bhushan, who have raised questions about the Chief Justice’s conduct in the recent past – applauded the unexpected action of the justices.

Other responses came from unusual places. Even as the government kept mum about the matter, insisting for the most part that this is just an internal issue for the judiciary, Bharatiya Janata Party Member of Parliament Subramanian Swamy praised them for their actions.

Government staying mum

The government has not officially put out any response to the crisis, one of the biggest to ever envelop the judiciary. Through unnamed sources, it put the word out that the government believes this is an internal matter that the judiciary will have to resolve by itself. Meanwhile, after headlines suggested the Prime Minister had summoned the Law Minister to discuss the issue, the latter’s office reportedly put out a denial.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.