Judicial peccadillos

THE CAVEAT of the Karnataka Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal striking down the appointment of Mr. R. K. Raghavan, Director, CBI, came as a thunder-clap causing near panic in official circles, especially the police and the Home Ministry. The tribunal exposed itself to the insinuation that it could not resist the temptation of gatercrashing into the sacred precincts of high officialdom when judicial restraint would have counselled it to pause and reflect. On administrative tribunals, Prof. De. Smith has this to observe: ``Judicial review of administrative action is inevitably sporadic and peripheral. Administrative process is not and cannot be a succession of justiciable controversies. Public authorities are set up to govern and administer and if their every act or decision were to be reviewed on unrestricted grounds by an independent judicial body, the business of administration could be brought to a standstill''. Wittingly or unwittingly, the Karnataka Bench almost paralysed the CBI. The order was plainly infructuous. The officer whose appointment was struck down and the ambitious aspirant were to exit on superannuation before the decision was to take effect and therefore the `blow' fell hurtless on the `dramatis personae'.

A damp squib, in common parlance and frowned upon by law. A posthumous order diminishes the dignity of law. The entire Bangalore drama had a Pickwickian air about it. A high power committee was involved in the selection of the candidate, it was in clear compliance with the new procedure laid down by the Supreme Court, the claimant was a junior and not someone deprived unjustly of his just dues, and what was worse, the petitioner approached the tribunal a year after the event and the tribunal took its own time and delivered a judgment a year thereafter and gave two months' time to effectuate the opinion by which time, as remarked earlier, it was getting posthumous with the jilted aspirant already out of government service and the other making his farewell rounds. `A ludicrous situation' may not be too strong a description. It was a plain gaffe.

Unnecessary interventions

Those of us who are familiar with the ways of the Executive are aware that administrators are not too sensitive to fairness in selections and quite often in important appointments, their orders are petty, arbitrary and coloured by nepotism and a tribunal stands between justice and injustice and saves the services from demoralisation. Soon after the Karnataka decision, came one from the Chennai Bench concerning a young IPS officer setting aside a few offensive confidential remarks that ought not to have been made. A minor breach of protocol, did not merit a censorious entry that would have haunted this young man throughout his life and public service would have lost a good officer. There was a general lack of sense of humour in the top police brass and the Brown Sahibs above, right up to the Home Ministry, that the tribunal had to step in and save the youngster from a humiliating snub. That he is now in Bosnia doing service with the `blue berets' shows the quality of the officer and I hope he did not flee to Kosovo in search of security which he did not receive here. I had to seek similar peace and fresh air in strife-torn Nagaland when I could no longer breathe in the stifling atmosphere in the districts. I am for more power to judicial hands but the majesty of law should never be disparaged by unnecessary interventions. Restraint is the essence of the religion of judges as much as intervention when justice is in peril. Civil servants at the top need to be reined in, more when they are collaborators.

Whether the Karnataka Bench has erred or not will be decided by the High Court and the sub judice character of the affair gags us all. But there have been worse incidents staining the judiciary like the infamous conduct of Justice Chawla in the Bofors case. Striking down the FIR against all principles of law just to oblige a VIP was an example of judicial flunkeyism. The judgment was an indictment of the High Court itself. To borrow Talleyrandel's language, Justice Chawla committed more than a crime. It was a `blunder', for the whole world saw the depths to which a judge could sink. The real joy of reposing great power in the hands of judges lies in the fact that aberrant behaviour is rare indeed. And then the higher court steps in and sets things right. It did instantaneously, when Chawla went berserk. Justice Ratnavelu Pandian quashed the misdemeanour and Bofors investigation had a reincarnation.

A prince among judges

And what sort of judge is Ratnavelu Pandian? He had a meteoric rise from a District Court to the Supreme Court of India, and came to be known in Madras as `fair and just and very human face' and no frills about him. That is exactly what people expect. Brilliance dazzles but is also viewed with suspicion. After retirement, he added an angelic virtue to his character. As a one-man commission of inquiry in Jammu and Kashmir he brought to bear a new dimension to a judge's robes, not seen earlier. While some judges are clamouring for large palatial houses without which their dignity would be diminished and others disdain to ride Ambassador cars, here is prince among judges who donated his entire salary to the orphans of J&K for the period he functioned as the Inquiry Commission. Hear what Mohammed, a student, said ``For us, he is an angel, who has the guts to tell the truth''. Another lawyer went lyrical and said ``His report will have special mention when Kashmir's history of this era is written''. The Hindu reported that Justice Pandian had carved out a place for himself in the hearts of the Kashmiris. And pure blasphemy, he submitted his report one month ahead of time, something that will go in the Book of Records, since no other commission has completed its inquiry without at least two extensions.

Not all are Pandians, and fortunately Chawlas are very rare indeed. Judges are the real protectors of the people in a democracy. Activist judges are our sentinels on the qui vive. I quote Justice Paul Stevens in ``Gore vs. Bush'' that is most appropriate for us. ``It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the backbone of the rule of law''. Despite some peccadillos of which from the lowest magistrate to the highest in the apex court is guilty, the judges have stood firm and occasionally a Gandhiji also arises from their midst, and that happens only in India - judges with a heart and a sense of urgency, both qualities displayed by Justice Ratnavelu Pandian. May his tribe increase.

V. R. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Know your english