The lawyers are also not generally happy the way it happened. Such reaction has nothing to do with the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations rumoured against the Chief Justice SK Sinha.
Without strong and independent judiciary everything about democracy or the rule of law is gone. We need not waste time debating over the importance of free and fair election of the parliament if independence of the judiciary cannot be protected.
We cannot say we know for sure the circumstances leading to the judges of the Appellate Division of Supreme Court told the Chief Justice they could not sit in court with him because the President had shown them some papers of misconduct by him. The people saw at the same time that later the Chief Justice Sinha easily went abroad on fresh leave. He said he would come back and he was not ill as publicised by the government.
Justice Sinha said about the development sadly that he was embarrassed.
But direct refusal by the judges of the Appellate Division not to cooperate with the Chief Justice before any judicial process was initiated against him has no doubt undermined and demoralised the judiciary in public perception. I still find it beyond belief that their Lordships did what they did. Many things are happening in our country which make no sense.
The people’s confidence in the judiciary must be restored by judges themselves with needed sense of mission. The people have been looking to the Supreme Court as the last bastion of integrity and courage in doing what is just and fair. If it is found not being so the people are frustrated.
The circumstances could not be so difficult or even so dangerous that the judges of the highest court could not decline to do without due process what was not their responsibility to do. If allegations were formally brought against the Chief Justice he could not sit as a judge without being told so.
The general public witnessed in bewilderment the matter of meeting the Chief Justice by the judges of the Appellate Division while he was living within the helplessness of confinement in his residence and telling him they could not sit with him in court because of the incriminating papers shown by the President. Surely they could not properly expect an answer from the Chief Justice.
The accepted procedure was for the President to send the papers to the Supreme Judicial Council for a follow up action.
Besides, the Chief Justice Sinha was to retire within few months and the proper authorities would have no difficulty in filing appropriate corruption cases if there is any substance in the allegations.
The question that will be unavoidable for answer from the government is why so long not a single case against him came up for investigation before the judgement on 16th amendment to the Constitution.
President Ayub Khan handled a similar situation when he politely handed a file of papers to Chief Justice Syed Mahbub Murshed of East Pakistan and told him to go through the file. It is said that the following day Justice Murshed gave his decision to resign. But we could not show this little courtesy.
The members of the government were desperately hounding the Chief Justice personally for the fault that he along with the five other judges of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court passed a judgement declaring assumption of the power of impeachment of Supreme Court judges by the parliament as unconstitutional.
Not only the judges but six eminent lawyers as amici curie gave their view in support of the judgement.
The full story behind the incident will come to light in due course. But our concern is to protect the independence of the judiciary for the rule of law to prevail.
