You were the CJI for five months. As you demit office do you leave the judiciary strong or has it been weakened?
I feel I am leaving it better than when what I got when I stepped in. That has been my endeavour and that has been my effort. But it is for the people to actually judge and see.
You said, you leave it slightly better than when you stepped in. In what way?
I have tried to ensure that the role of the judiciary in the administration of democracy continues to be as the constitution makers thought it to be. And, that is a matter of satisfaction, I believe.
There are reasons to believe the executive is trying to hobble the judiciary with legislations—the judicial accountability bill and the judicial appointments bill. What do you have to say about this?
What is important is to ensure...Look, obviously, judges have to be and, in fact, are accountable to the constitution. I am not going to comment on the legislation, but surely there should not be any worry about something that does not actually affect the institutional independence and institutional integrity of the judiciary. What is most important is that institutional independence of the judiciary should not be tinkered in any manner.
Are there reasons to believe that judicial integrity and independence may be imperilled?
No, No. I don’t think so. Look, I can tell you India has matured as a strong democracy and I always believe that for a strong democracy all three wings of the state, namely legislature, executive and judiciary must be strong because it is only when these three wings are strong, the ultimate result is you have a strong democracy. And I think we should be proud of the fact that a county as big as India having such a strong democracy is a very good sign. Institutions which we have built over a period of time, besides the judiciary, like the Election Commission and other constitutional institutions, they all are sign of mature democracy. Look, as long as you work within the parameters and the limits, I don’t find, any reason for any clash..
Is there a reason to believe the executive is encroaching...?
All these three wings are strong. Judiciary has inherent strength. Legislature has its inherent strength and the executive has its inherent strength. I don’t think any wing should have apprehension from other wings. I don’t, frankly speaking, have any doubt.
For a strong rule of law, a strong judiciary is a must. But at the same time when the other two organs are strong, ultimately you are achieving the objective of a strong rule of law. And when I say, strong rule of law, obviously it means a strong democracy. Because if your rule of law is slippery, your democracy is bound to be slippery.
Are you worried, about the dangers of a majoritarian government? After all, since 1984, this is the first time a strong majority government is in place?
What is the danger?
A danger of authoritarianism?
It just can’t be. Because, look, the legislature is also guided by the constitution. The executive is also guided by the constitution and the judiciary is also guided by the constitution . And the judiciary is the final arbiter of the interpretation of laws. I don’t see, frankly speaking, any clash. Look, it is majority, majority is good for governance. But it is not going to affect the the judiciary. After six decades and more, of our independence and constitution, such apprehension is misconstrued.
Yet, when you took over, you angrily responded to the Gopal Subramaniam episode
Not angrily. But yes, look, we have certain procedures, so long as it is within the domain of the executive to send a name back, that’s not a problem. Because that’s how the consultative process is made effective. But I think, as per the existing procedures, since his was not the lone name, it was clubbed with others, segregation was something that was not in accordance with the procedure and I objected to that. And after Gopal Subramaniam withdrew his name, nothing further could have been done, actually. I persuaded him and called him. The place where you (pointing to me) are sitting is where Gopal sat for 75 minutes and I did my best and he told me that he would return the next day. But unfortunately, then he sent me a six-line letter, that he was withdrawing his consent.
Yet, he also expressed dissatisfaction at the judiciary letting him down. Didn’t he?
That was misconceived, unfounded and baseless because, look, judiciary does not react— I could not have reacted on press reports or any other report. I could have reacted only after receiving official papers. No sooner I received them, the very first day I returned from abroad, I called him. So where was the occasion for his conclusions and inferences ? I told him and then he apologized.
His 'segregation', was not discussed with you? This was done without your knowledge? Were reasons given to you?
No I will not divulge the reasons. Consultative process is fine but ultimately the final call would have to be taken by us. Unfortunately, that opportunity was taken away by Gopal Subraminam by withdrawing his consent, because we couldn’t take a decision.
The Judicial appointment bill seeks to ensure that the final call will not be taken by the judiciary. What do you think?
Once the law is in place, things would be different as a commission would have come into effect.. It has to be passed and ratified by 15 states, presidential assent will have to be given.
As a citizen and not as the CJI, what are the concerns arising from the Judicial Appointments Bill?
I will not react to that. But you know, different countries have different procedures. Recently, at an event in London, I had a long discussion with chairman of the Judicial Appointment Commission of UK, Chris Stephens, and one of the members, Lord Tulson, who is the judge of the Supreme Court of UK, explained the procedure and the norms. But I can tell you with all that, yes they are very happy. They said, initially, good lawyers were not applying as they had a mindset one should not make any application. Later on, after two- three years things have improved. But still, his assessment was the best talent does not apply. T o my pointed question— Has it really improved the quality? Has the selection through the commission improved the quality of judges? —he said it is not so, but it has brought transparency and that has brought tremendous satisfaction to people. So, the transparency part has been achieved
So, the best are not getting in?
They are now getting used to it. The procedure is transparent according to them.
You had once questioned the legislature’s wisdom to not have an LOP (leader of opposition)? It led to a reaction that you were commenting on the legislature.
No. Absolutely not. I tell you, I have huge respect for democratic institutions. When I walk on the Krishna Menon Marg (his residence), one end opens at Vijay Chowk. As soon as you come out you see the Parliament. I go for a walk early in the morning and when I see that building and the flag, I just bow because this is a democratic institution. When I go to the Supreme Court, you cannot imagine how proud I feel because the Parliament , you know, this is democracy at work. There are certain statutes even today which require— in the selection of CVC, Lok Pal— the involvement of LOP. So, it was in that context we wanted to know how this problem would be sorted out. The Attorney General has said said they will look into it. Either some amendment is brought in law or something is done because ultimately statutory procedure for selection has to be effective.