Chief Justice J.S. Verma retires on January 18. As per the norms, he should already have nominated his successor; however, he has chosen to maintain an enigmatic silence. This delay is unfortunate as it has brought under scrutiny the judiciary, perhaps the last credible institution of the republic. With the chief justice not exercising his option, the caretaker Government may deem it correct to act unilaterally and impose its choice on the Supreme Court. Should this happen, it will be tragic for the judiciary; it will be doubly tragic for India. In 1993, a Constitution bench -- of which, ironically, Verma was a member -- had set the rules for the chief justice's appointment. It had made it obligatory for the President to accept the recommendation of the outgoing chief justice. The judgement also upheld the convention of inviting the seniormost member of the bench to the top chair, as long as he was "considered fit to hold the office". If Justice M.M. Punchhi, the seniormost judge after Verma, is "fit" to hold the office, the delay is inexplicable. If Punchhi is considered unfit, then too the decision should have been known well in advance, regardless of the controversy that the resultant supersession might have triggered. After all, transparency is the oxygen of democracy.

It is not individuals who are important here; the future of the judicial arm of Indian democracy is at stake. In times which are inherently uneasy, the country could have done without speculation about who will be its custodian of justice. In recent years, as the executive and legislature have lost authority, the judicary has held its head high. For the nation's sake, this must continue to be the case. If judicial autonomy seemed to be strengthened by the 1993 judgement, I.K. Gujral's Government may decide it is within its caretaking responsibility to pose a challenge to it and nominate a chief justice on its own. Institutional anarchy will then merge with constitutional conundrum; and India will be the poorer.

Mutiny and Bounty
The IAF has no place for trade unionism--nor for populist defence ministers.

I.K. Gujral's regime will be remembered for accelerating the atrophy of Indian public life. Yet, even by the regime's astonishing standards, Mulayam Singh Yadav has proved a remarkably feckless defence minister. The present pay-disparity controversy in the Indian Air Force (IAF) -- which threatens to afflict other wings of the armed forces as well -- is a case in point. It began when the Defence Ministry was persuaded by the IAF's top brass to inordinately increase the fighter pilots' allowances. Transport and helicopter pilots protested. Mulayam gave in to them too. Next, the engineers and other ground staff protested -- and are still doing so. To be fair, all of this is not Mulayam's doing. Even so, to him must go the undistinguished flying cross for the original sin: seeing the armed forces as a vote bank, pandering to sectional interests and injecting neo-casteism into the IAF. The IAF must remain the cohesive unit which all India is proud of. It cannot be allowed to become a collection of varyingly paid and perennially quarrelling groups, each defined by a particular job description.

Air Chief Marshal S.K. Sareen too has proved unequal to his role as leader of the entire IAF. A fighter pilot, he has not done much to efface the suspicion that he is yet to outgrow his roots. As for the engineers and other officers who have become regular visitors to newspaper offices, asked engineering students not to join the IAF and pressed wives into trade unionism, their methods have taken away from any justness their cause may have had. The circus has continued much too long. The recently established committee, headed by the defence secretary, to look into pay grievances in the armed forces, owes it to India to work overtime. Likewise, future defence ministers also owe it to the country to maintain more than a passing acquaintance with their duties.

Write to us | Subscriptions

© Living Media India Ltd