By K Raveendran
In an unprecedented move, over 600 lawyers penned a letter to the Chief Justice of India, raising alarms about a ‘vested interest group’ allegedly attempting to influence the judiciary’s decisions, particularly in cases involving political figures and corruption. This letter has garnered significant attention, not least because of the Prime Minister’s endorsement, which he framed as a critique of the opposition’s tactics, labelling it as ‘vintage Congress culture’.
The letter, dated March 26, accuses this unnamed group of employing tactics that threaten the democratic fabric and the trust placed in judicial processes. The signatories, which include eminent advocates like Harish Salve and Manan Kumar Mishra, express deep concern over the propagation of false narratives aimed at discrediting the judiciary and undermining public confidence in the courts.
The Prime Minister’s support of the letter on social media adds an intriguing twist to the whole issue. While Modi has ostensibly used it to attack Congress, it may be part of a subtle game to shape public opinion in favour of the ruling party. And in many ways, the development is a reflection of the increasingly fraught relationship between the judiciary and the executive in India.
The letter as well as the Prime Minister’s subsequent endorsement have sparked a debate on the independence of the judiciary and the role of the executive in safeguarding or undermining this principle. The opposition has countered the Prime Minister’s support for the letter, accusing him of attempting to ‘give legal guarantee to corruption.’
The timing of the letter is also significant, coming as it does amidst a backdrop of several high-profile judgments and ongoing cases that have political implications. The lawyers’ letter alleges ‘bench fixing’, disrespectful comparisons of domestic courts to those in lawless regimes, and direct attacks on judges’ honour. These are serious charges that, if true, could have far-reaching consequences for the rule of law in India.
The Prime Minister’s backing of the letter has been interpreted by some as an attempt to discredit verdicts in cases that may not go in favour of the government. By framing the narrative around a ‘vested interest group’ trying to influence the judiciary, the ruling party can potentially discredit unfavourable judgments as being influenced by this group, rather than as independent decisions of the court.
The letter and the Prime Minister’s response must be viewed in the broader context of attempts to hijack public opinion. The ruling party has been using various means to shape public discourse in its favour, from influencing media narratives to the use of social media for political propaganda. The endorsement of the letter by the Prime Minister can be seen as part of this larger strategy to control the narrative and reinforce the government’s position.
The implications of this episode are profound. It raises questions about the integrity of the judicial process and the independence of the judiciary, which are cornerstones of a functioning democracy. It also highlights the challenges faced by the judiciary in maintaining its autonomy in the face of political pressure. The support of the Prime Minister for the letter could be seen as an endorsement of the judiciary when it aligns with the government’s views, but it also raises concerns about the potential for executive overreach.
The development no doubt points to attempts being made on the sly to influence judicial decisions in important cases. This was clearly seen in action when the constitutional bench was handling the electoral bond case in which the government suffered a series of setbacks. The government and its supporters tried everything in the book, and outside of it, to prevent details from coming out ahead of the elections so as to save further embarrassment to the ruling party.
First, senior Supreme Court advocate Adish C Aggarwala, who is also the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the All India Bar Association (AIBA), caused consternation when he wrote to Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud urging him to suo motu review the Supreme Court’s direction that the poll panel shall publish the information shared by the State Bank of India on its official website in the electoral bonds case on the ground that the abrupt disclosures will have an adverse impact on the donors. A couple of days prior to that he had written to President Droupadi Murmu urging her to seek presidential reference of the apex court judgement in the electoral bonds scheme case and not to give effect to it unless the top court has reheard the matter. The Supreme Court Bar Association, however, distanced itself from Aggarwala’s demand, saying his conduct was not authorised.
This has also to be seen in the context of major industries associations Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) and Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), seeking to defer the disclosure of electoral bond unique identification numbers, pointing to an orchestrated campaign against the truth coming out in the electoral bond case. (IPA Service)
The post Modi Backing Lawyers Letter About ‘Vested Interest Group’ Betrays A Sinister Plot first appeared on Latest India news, analysis and reports on IPA Newspack.
