New Delhi: As many as 56 former judges on Tuesday slammed the statement of 18 former judges, who had defended the Opposition's vice presidential candidate B Sudershan Reddy against Home Minister Amit Shah's criticism, suggesting that it amounted to misusing the cover of judicial independence for political convenience.
The 50 former judges, including five of the Supreme Court, said, "These statements are determined to cloak their political partisanship under the language of judicial independence. This practice does a great disservice to the institution we once served, as it projects judges as political actors."
"Let those who have chosen the path of politics defend themselves in that realm," they said in a statement, adding the institution of the judiciary must be kept above and distinct from such entanglements.
They were reacting to the statement of 18 retired judges who had termed as "unfortunate" Shah's attack on Reddy over his judgment disbanding Salwa Judum, an armed organisation of tribal youths who fought alongside police against Naxals in Chhattisgarh, as part of a two-judge Supreme Court bench in 2011.
Shah had accused Reddy of "supporting" Naxalism. He had claimed that Left Wing Extremism would have ended by 2020 in the absence of the Salwa Judum judgement.
"The statement of Union Home Minister Amit Shah, publicly misinterpreting the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Salwa Judum case, is unfortunate. The judgment nowhere supports, either expressly or by compelling implication of its text, Naxalism or its ideology," the statement signed by the 18 former judges had said.
Hitting back, the statement issued by 56 retired judges said they feel compelled to place on record their strong disagreement with the stand of a group of retired judges and activists.
The 56 ex-judges include former chief justices of India, P Sathasivam and Ranjan Gogoi, a nominated Rajya Sabha member, and retired Supreme Court judges A K Sikri and M R Shah.
They said it has become a predictable pattern, as every major political development is met with statements from the same quarters. These statements are determined to cloak their political partisanship under the language of judicial independence, they claimed.
This practice does a great disservice to the institution they all once served, as it projects judges as political actors, they added.
They said, "This erodes the prosperity, dignity and neutrality that the office of a judicial officer demands. A fellow retired judge has chosen, of his own volition, to contest the election for the office of the Vice President of India. By doing so, he has stepped into the political arena as a candidate supported by the opposition. Having made that choice, he must defend his candidacy like any other contestant, in the realm of political debate."
To suggest otherwise is to stifle democratic discourse and to misuse the cover of judicial independence for political convenience, they said.
The statement said judicial independence is not threatened by the criticism of a political candidate, and what truly tarnishes the judiciary's reputation is when former judges repeatedly issue partisan statements, giving the impression that the institution itself is aligned with "political battles".
"As a result of these tactics, because of the fault of a few, the larger body of judges ends up being painted as partisan coterie. This is neither fair nor healthy for India's judiciary or democracy. We therefore strongly call upon our brother judges to desist from lending their names to politically motivated statements," they said.
They added, "Let those who have chosen the path of politics defend themselves in that realm. The institution of the judiciary must be kept above and distinct from such entanglements."
The 56 former judges included Suresh Kait, Ali Mohammad Magrey, Navniti Prasad Singh, S K Mittal and L Narsimha Reddy, ex-chief justices of high courts in Madhya Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Rajasthan and Patna, respectively.
The 50 former judges, including five of the Supreme Court, said, "These statements are determined to cloak their political partisanship under the language of judicial independence. This practice does a great disservice to the institution we once served, as it projects judges as political actors."
"Let those who have chosen the path of politics defend themselves in that realm," they said in a statement, adding the institution of the judiciary must be kept above and distinct from such entanglements.
They were reacting to the statement of 18 retired judges who had termed as "unfortunate" Shah's attack on Reddy over his judgment disbanding Salwa Judum, an armed organisation of tribal youths who fought alongside police against Naxals in Chhattisgarh, as part of a two-judge Supreme Court bench in 2011.
Shah had accused Reddy of "supporting" Naxalism. He had claimed that Left Wing Extremism would have ended by 2020 in the absence of the Salwa Judum judgement.
"The statement of Union Home Minister Amit Shah, publicly misinterpreting the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Salwa Judum case, is unfortunate. The judgment nowhere supports, either expressly or by compelling implication of its text, Naxalism or its ideology," the statement signed by the 18 former judges had said.
Hitting back, the statement issued by 56 retired judges said they feel compelled to place on record their strong disagreement with the stand of a group of retired judges and activists.
The 56 ex-judges include former chief justices of India, P Sathasivam and Ranjan Gogoi, a nominated Rajya Sabha member, and retired Supreme Court judges A K Sikri and M R Shah.
They said it has become a predictable pattern, as every major political development is met with statements from the same quarters. These statements are determined to cloak their political partisanship under the language of judicial independence, they claimed.
This practice does a great disservice to the institution they all once served, as it projects judges as political actors, they added.
They said, "This erodes the prosperity, dignity and neutrality that the office of a judicial officer demands. A fellow retired judge has chosen, of his own volition, to contest the election for the office of the Vice President of India. By doing so, he has stepped into the political arena as a candidate supported by the opposition. Having made that choice, he must defend his candidacy like any other contestant, in the realm of political debate."
To suggest otherwise is to stifle democratic discourse and to misuse the cover of judicial independence for political convenience, they said.
The statement said judicial independence is not threatened by the criticism of a political candidate, and what truly tarnishes the judiciary's reputation is when former judges repeatedly issue partisan statements, giving the impression that the institution itself is aligned with "political battles".
"As a result of these tactics, because of the fault of a few, the larger body of judges ends up being painted as partisan coterie. This is neither fair nor healthy for India's judiciary or democracy. We therefore strongly call upon our brother judges to desist from lending their names to politically motivated statements," they said.
They added, "Let those who have chosen the path of politics defend themselves in that realm. The institution of the judiciary must be kept above and distinct from such entanglements."
The 56 former judges included Suresh Kait, Ali Mohammad Magrey, Navniti Prasad Singh, S K Mittal and L Narsimha Reddy, ex-chief justices of high courts in Madhya Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Rajasthan and Patna, respectively.
You may also like
Iga Swiatek enjoys double celebration at US Open after big Taylor Swift news
In UK, Indians see highest increase in sex offence convictions among all foreign nationals
PS Plus free PS4 and PS5 games for September 2025 reveal date, time and predictions
Mhow-Rewa Special Train To Run Every Saturday
Tourists heading to Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, and Malta hit with extra costs
