Bid to sway judiciary
Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu\'s decision to turn down the Notice of Motion for the removal of the CJI, Justice Dipak Mishra, brings curtains down on the cruellest drama played by the Congress, which was guided by a shameless political exigency.
Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu's decision to turn down the Notice of Motion for the removal of the CJI, Justice Dipak Mishra, brings curtains down on the cruellest drama played by the Congress, which was guided by a shameless political exigency.
For this cause, they placed want of prudence, which vice is in the defect, at the right hand of prudence; and at the left hand malice or craft, which is the excess, and causes a man to sin not through ignorance, but by deceit and subtlety, and that under the name of prudence. And this is what the Congress has done.
Consumed by anger and worried about an uncertain future, it attempted unsuccessfully to instill doubts in the minds of the CJI and the nation thereof, regarding the character of the very Apex Court itself to force the CJI to resort to 'Astra Sanyas’ by asking to him abstain from all judicial and administrative work till the impeachment notice was taken to a logical conclusion.
Despite all its protestations, it is clear that the Congress has resorted to politics of revenge. The party's contention that it waited for the Rajya Sabha Chairman to return was also ridiculous as all such notices are just forwarded to the Secretary General and one need not wait for the Vice-Chairman to be present. In fact, the malaise has gone on for too long in case of the Congress and not the Judiciary now.
One only needs to recall the then Union Minister, S M Kumaramangalam's statement in Parliament on May 2, 1973 justifying the appointment of Justice A N Ray as CJI, superseding three stalwart judges of the time – J M Shelat, K S Hegde and A N Grover – to understand what the Congress prefers. The Minister spake thus: ...as a government has a duty to take the philosophy and outlook of the judge in coming to the conclusion whether he should or should not lead the Supreme Court."
This is enough to prove that the Congress cannot live with independent judiciary. Rewarding judges loyal to the party is in the DNA of the Congress and several instances. The party always believed that a Judge has to have a certain philosophy and outlook to become CJI. There is a much larger grievance, of the Congress, behind moving the Notice of Motion. The party does not want the Ayodhya case to be decided before the next general elections as it fears a Hindutva backlash which could throw Rahul Gandhi's career into a jeopardy.
Having unsuccessfully appealed for postponing the hearings to a date beyond elections, the Congress latched onto the Judge Loya case. Its primary intention was to embarrass the CJI so that he would recuse from all judicial and administrative duties till the motion is decided upon, which would in turn push the Ayodhya case into a much-needed limbo for the party to rejoice. In the present CJI, the Congress is finding a tough and unyielding person who refuses to bend to its whims and requests. So, it used the issues raised by some learned SC judges to accuse the CJI of misconduct.