Why the CJI's refusal to meet Rahul Gandhi matters |
The Chief Justice of India refused to meet the Leader of the Opposition on the 12th of this month and hear his grievances, even though one of his predecessors had no problems inviting the prime minister to his residence for a puja and a cosy tête-à-tête. This snub was both unfortunate and expected.
Unfortunate, because the CJI is not another divine, non-biological being but a part of the system. This system has become dysfunctional, and the LoP simply wanted to convey this to him.
The LoP has as much constitutional status as a CJI, even though their roles differ. The CJI would not have compromised his much-vaunted, but increasingly doubted, political 'neutrality' if he had had the courtesy to meet the LoP, listen to his grievances, perhaps accept a memorandum or two, share a cup of tea, and bid him 'auf wiedersehen' or 'We shall meet at Philippi'.
No one expected him to act on the grievances, of course, since many of them pertain to his own court, but at least the window-dressing of democratic accessibility and an 'independent' judiciary would have been preserved. It might even have restored some of the trust that large sections of the public no longer have in the Court.
But, as I said, the refusal was expected, for the simple reason that the Supreme Court no longer has the moral authority and public trust to act as an honest broker (or arbiter) between the government and the Opposition/ public. It had started shedding this constitutional Teflon long before CJI Surya Kant's tenure, beginning with its orders on Rafale, Pegasus, Hindenburg, Ram Mandir, electoral bonds and Umar Khalid, to name just a few.
But the moulting has become more pronounced over the last year or so. There is a perception that it has been consistently siding with the executive and the Election Commission in spite of scientific evidence, ground realities and public demands.
It gave a........