Even by the standards of a country where something unexpected happens every minute, the scene last week at India’s Supreme Court was startling.
India’s top judges are invariably reticent; for example by shying away from any public display of political affiliations. However, the four most senior judges of the court last week held a news conference together, an unprecedented act.
They then accused their boss, Indian Chief Justice Dipak Misra, of undermining the Supreme Court — the one institution in the nation that many fondly thought was insulated from corruption or political interference.
Democracy might not survive, the judges said.
Let us get one thing straight: These judges are not malcontents or habitual dissenters. Some of them lean conservative, others liberal. One of them is due to take over as chief justice later this year, when Misra retires — unlike in the US, where US Supreme Court judges serve for life, in India they have a clear exit date.
The four justices leveled some disturbing allegations at Misra.
India’s chief justice really has only one unique power: the ability to decide which set of judges hears which case.
Given that India’s Supreme Court has dozens of judges — another difference from the US, which famously has only nine — this power is far from meaningless. You could, theoretically, encourage certain outcomes by handing cases over to certain judges, if you knew in advance their sympathies and predispositions.
That is exactly what the four justices at the news conference said they feared.
“There have been instances where cases having far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution have been assigned by the chief justices of this court selectively to the benches ‘of their preference’ without any rational basis for such assignment,” they said.
The judges referred obliquely to at least one such case: the examination of whether there was anything suspicious about the 2014 death of Justice BH Loya, who was trying a murder case against Amit Shah, who has since arguably become India’s second-most powerful man.
Shah is president of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which runs the federal government and most of the states, and he has long been Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s right-hand man.
The magazine Caravan last month broke a story rasing some unsettling questions about the circumstances surrounding Loya’s death — a death which coincidentally cleared the way for the dismissal of the murder charge against Shah.
When asked about the controversy early last month, Shah, who has denied any wrongdoing, said the law would “take its own course.”
The Supreme Court was forced to take notice of the problem; after all, a judge had died, but the four judges speaking out apparently believed that a more senior bench of their fellows should have been assigned to the question than the one decided on by Misra.
Hours after the latter turned down their request that he reconsider, they called their news conference.
The possibility of a subversion of justice — in a case involving a dead judge and powerful politicians — would be deeply troubling if true. Such things happen in countries without a real judiciary or democratic institutions. It is not how things are meant to be done in India.
On Monday, it looked like the situation had returned to normal; Supreme Court justices do not go on strike — at least, not yet. The BJP brought forward the young son of the dead judge who said, while surrounded by a battery of lawyers, that he no longer supported an investigation into his father’s death.
However, damage has been done to the court and to the government. Questions are now being asked about multiple other such assignments of cases.
Until Misra clears the air and makes institutional changes to how cases are assigned, such suspicions are not going away, and unless there is an open, swift and independent investigation of Loya’s death, suspicions about that will not subside either.
India’s judicial system is hardly the best in the world. It is overworked, choked by hundreds of long-running or unnecessary cases and yes, as any businessman will tell you, the lower judiciary is perhaps open to a spot of bribery or a touch of manipulation.
However, it has long been assumed that at least the higher judiciary is independent and clean. For investors and citizens alike, the presence of a Supreme Court that can be trusted made up for myriad other failings of the Indian state. Restoring that faith should be an urgent priority.
Mihir Sharma is a Bloomberg View columnist. He was a columnist for the Indian Express and the Business Standard. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath