Indian Judicial Systems – Expections of Voting Citizens for New India of Future.

In the on-going matter of ‘Shiv Sena/Maharashtra Governers’ Role’ in the Supreme Court of India, whatever is the outcome, the political space, and the larger “supporter” groups in media and social media, are going to be emotionally hurt – yet again triggering healthy debates-discussions on citizens expectations on ‘Role of and Expectation from Indian Judiciary’.

The context: ‘Shiv Sena/Maharashtra Governers’ Role’ matter in Supreme Court of India, check CJI’s Court Room 1 proceedings from 14th Feb onwards. It’s about 62 hours so far. (God bless 1.5x speed feature + skip of necessary lunch break time.)

In about 40 hours of what I have watched so far, Shiv Sena/Government’s side seems on a sticky wicket. Sibal-Sanghvi have done an aggressive job.

Also, bear in mind, the Judges are not supposed to assume arguments. It has to be made and impressed upon the bench. It is literally ‘may the best man win’ game.

It’s dance of democracy literally. I am enjoying watching Supreme Court proceedings. This is a good initiative by the current CJI and a very good opportunity for the citizens to listen to the arguments and observe the process objectively.

One can admire the experience and at the same time keep building viewpoints on what is agreeable, disagreement points and things which trigger curiosity for deeper insights.

Whoever loses is certainly going to cry death of democracy and be very unhappy-upset with judiciary.

I have maintained one viewpoint consistently since over two decades now – never open a door you cannot close.

At certain level, sometimes it seems, the judiciary’s definition of independence, so far, has been more a boon in our nation, given the political and citizenry maturity, than bane – “so far” being the key point.

Politically we have been volatile since 1989. It has been crazy last three decades – from short tenure governments, minority government, NDA 1 coalition with over 20 parties, confusing PM-SuperPM coalition of UPA, Mandal unrest, Ayodhya, Kargil, two big stock market scams, massive economic scams, et al. The Executive and the Legislative space was action packed and unpredictable.

Gladly, the Judiciary, perceptively, remained immune to the craziness in the Executive-Legislative space.

And this is precisely what I mean by “never open a door you cannot close”.

We did open the door which we are finding difficult to close – regarding judiciary’s interpretation of it’s own independence – an act which normally would be tested for “conflict-of-interest” almost instantaneously.

Due to the political circumstances of past three decades, from the Executive and the Legislature side, the resistance was ineffective and public debates-discussions on the topic appeared subdued to the level of being almost non-existent.

I do not agree with the judiciary’s interpretation of its own independence. Yet, purely by chance, judiciary, with it’s imperfections, stood stable through past three decades. Hence, though by sheer chance, I think it was more boon than bane.

It is a perspective in hindsight.

In this light, given that nation has experienced two straight clear-majority BJP-led NDA governments at the Center and that the political stability seems likely to continue, the public space for debates-discussions on “Definition of Role of and Expectations from Judiciary in New India” is shaping up well.

There is also a clear shift in voter preferences reflecting in voting patterns. The voting citizens are gradually understanding the importance of conversations-debates-discussions.

There is an uptick in engagements by the voters in seeking viewpoints of politicians, who form the Executive and the Legislature, on broad-spectrum of topics including their views on the current Indian Judicial System. Voting citizens are actively expressing their suggestions on New Idea of New India including how the future Judiciary should reflect the same.

Debates-Discussions in civil society are more open, articulate and less acrimonious today. The engagements between the labled groups i.e. right, non-left, left, et al is more frequent and more civil.

In this context, I would credit Late Shri Arun Jaitley in opening the floor and giving voting citizens confidence to discuss judicial matters fearlessly. He made a very bold attempt to open the door of judicial reforms via NJAC. It was quite timely. His reasoning was sharp, articulate and profound. His public essay, after NJAC was stuck down, stuck a cord with citizens across spectrum.

This move, one of the many envisaged to reform the Indian Judicial System to keep it aligned with the reforms in the Executive and the Legislative systems, was a necessary push voters of India needed. It gave voting citizens confidence to interest themselves in listening and participate in public debates-discussions on the role, jurisdiction, standards and accountability within the Judicial System in New India.

Today, views on Indian Judicial Systems are being openly and fearlessly expressed by the Executive, Legislature and Civil Society.

The Judiciary too, outside the courts, through sitting and retired Judges, is expressing their viewpoints publically and fearlessly.

Probably, today we are having the widest public discussion on almost every aspect of Judicial Systems in India since independence.

All thanks to the bold move by Shri Arun Jaitley and firmly supported by PM Narendra Modi. The Executive and the Legislative spaces have evolve and continue to improved. I remain hopeful for changes in Indian Judicial Systems reflecting the New Idea of New India. It’s inevitable.

Patience and politeness are timeless effective tools to bring change in mindset and the system. This change will be more via cerebral route, not activist/conflict route.