Why the remarks attributed to CJI Surya Kant raise serious concerns about judicial sensitivity? Why the remarks of CJI Surya Kant are of serious concern to raise the issue of judicial sensitivity?
These reported words by Surya Kant, likening the “cockroaches” of unemployed young lawyers with the “cockroaches” of RTI activists to “take to social media and RTI activism”, must be taken seriously, not that judges are not allowed to state their unhappiness, but because of the institutional strength of judicial speech. Even if the word of the highest judicial office in the constitution has no force of law, it still has moral, political and social power.
The legal profession in India is in a dire situation. Each year, thousands of law graduates appear before courts with little financial support, no institutional guidance and insufficient job prospects. Junior advocates in district courts frequently work for a number of years on meager wages. Litigation costs a lot, the chambers are ranked and opportunities only go to a few. To sack floundering young lawyers with degrading terms, is to show an unhealthy lack of connection with reality.
The term ‘cockroaches’ is especially disturbing. The use of language in democratic institutions should not demean people, particularly those who are already vulnerable in the system. Criticism of professional conduct is acceptable, contemptuous characterisation is not. The judiciary possesses not only constitutional power, but public trust, public restraint and public fairness. When judges start caricaturizing parts of citizens, the judiciary is in danger of being misinterpreted as intolerant of criticism and insensitive to economic hardship.
As is the seemingly targeted approach to RTI activism and engagement on social media. It is precisely for this reason that the Right to Information Act, 2005 was passed, to give citizens the means to challenge opacity and demand accountability from anyone, including the state. Frivolous uses of RTI are not necessarily a thing, but general criticisms of RTI activism can undermine an important democratic tool. The framework of RTI has courageously helped in uncovering many corruption cases, administrative irregularities, governance failures etc.
Likewise, social media is one of the few avenues that allow young lawyers, students and activists to talk about institutional issues. It has highlighted issues relating to appointment delays, lack of infrastructure at the court, issues in legal education, and the problems in the legal profession. Online criticism can be irresponsible or sensationalist, but to label all online criticism as nuisance behaviour is to have a limited notion of how to participate in democracy in contemporary times.
A more general constitutional issue also lies under scrutiny. The judiciary is often and repeatedly reminding governments and public authorities of the principles of civility, tolerance and constitutional morality in public discourse. Such standards must be equally applicable within the judiciary. It is difficult for courts to take strong action against hate speech, bullying and degrading language, while simultaneously seeming to “normalize” it in other situations.
The controversy also reflects an emerging “gap” between litigants, students, young professionals and the higher judiciary. The fact that so many law graduates today are out of work is not due to their lack of merit, but because the economic landscape of the legal profession remains highly skewed. They have a need for reform, not ridicule, in the form of transparent recruitment practices, improved funding for legal aid, institutional fellowships, and increased support for first generation lawyers.
In the end, it is not criticism of these remarks that is an attack on the judiciary. On the contrary, it is a defence of judicial dignity. Constitutional courts are respected when they are empathetic, controlled and open to criticism. Young lawyers and RTI activists can be an inconvenience, noisy at times, even misguided at others – but in a democracy, inconvenience is not reason for contempt.
