K Chakra Pani
This article comes in the wake of the news which is perceived differently by people in different fields of society: the entry of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay into politics. There have been contrasting views from each side, supporting and criticising the move. But there is one unbiased aspect common in all views: this not only disturbs the democratic fabric of the country, but also questions the divide between the legislature, executive, and judiciary. The entry of Judges into politics leads to questionability on their working, interests, and support shown while being a part of the Bench, resulting in probable politically coloured decisions taken.
What is the story of Justice Gangopadhyay’s entry into politics?
Hon’ble Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay is a former Judge of the Calcutta High Court. His name was prominent in the Bench and the Bar, known for his unwavering stance against corruption by the ruling Trinamool Congress party in the State. Through various decisions against the ruling government, he earned the title of ‘people’s judge’ in the eyes of society, showing no tolerance for corruption or illegal activities alleged against the government. But little did society know that such decisions would have the implied support towards the opposition party – BJP, which he is currently a part of. Months before his retirement in August 2024, he announced his resignation from Judgeship in March 2024, showing his intent to join politics with the Union ruling party, and that there was ‘mutual contact between both of them’, leading to him approaching BJP and them approaching him too. The Government has notified his resignation from his Judgeship in accordance with Article 217(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The reason he stated for joining the political party is that it was the only means to fight a ‘corrupt’ and ‘goon-infested’ Trinamool Congress.[1]
The Implications of Judges in Politics
Democracy is standing on three pillars – Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary, the unseen fourth pillar being Media and Press. They are known and expected to be independent yet complementary to each other. Such separation of powers leads to a system of checks and balances, where steps are taken to prevent the intrusion of one area into another. A healthy relationship among all the four pillars leads to an ideal democracy, which is not the state of affairs in India. Concerning the interdependence and involvement of the Government and the Judiciary, there have been concerns about the independence of the judiciary in making decisions. Yet, it is said as an open secret that governmental bodies like the Central Bureau of Investigation, Enforcement Directorate, etc. are now not independent agencies, but agencies functioning on behalf of the ruling government’s desires. The Judiciary is the last law-enforcement institution in the country after such agencies, where they are held accountable for acts causing injustice. It is the last ray of hope for the aggrieved and the society to seek justice. But when such an institution or its participants are coloured by political colours, there is virtually no hope for justice being delivered. As a result, they would act as per the political inclinations and wishes of the government, not on their individual morale and principles laid down in the constitution, along with natural justice.
Political Justice Delivered?
The Judiciary is a significant yet critically sensitive area in a democracy like India. It has all the powers to deliver justice but can also be susceptible to influences that change such paths of delivering justice. Justice Gangopadhyay’s journey in the Judiciary is unique. He was known for following his own moves irrespective of the rules or customs being followed. His defiance to succumb to the political pressures and other influences while deciding cases against the ruling state government made him achieve the light of being a fair and justiciable judge in the High Court. Any matter which needed justice delivery was done fairly by him. Almost all matters against the TMC Government were decided against them, thereby prosecuting them for their alleged offences. He skipped the trend of offering decisions in favour of the ruling government to be on their good side. But his recent moves and justifications place severe doubt on his judgments. It was inferred that the decisions were taken with pure justice as the motive, but there was something hidden that came to light with the entry into politics.
Justice Gangopadhyay stated in his press conference that he was in touch with the political party during his tenure at the Bench. This raises concern about the independence and non-bias in the decisions taken involving the BJP or the TMC. There could be probable political influence behind making decisions against the TMC Government, and not purely on a legal basis. This goes against the basic conscience of a democracy, which does not allow or foresee the entry of a Judge, who holds a high position of delivering justice, into politics, which is riddled with corruption and other offences. While swearing in to be a Judge, the person takes an oath that he shall “…perform the duties of office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will…”. The oath itself creates a clear and rightful barrier between the judge and his affection towards political inclinations or others. The Judiciary is an independent pillar that checks the powers of the other pillars two through cases filed before it. If such a system is leaning towards politics, the judgements delivered may no longer have the essence of justice, but more hints of political inclination would be seen.
The entry of judges in politics is not new, with Justice K Subba Rao resigning to contest in Presidential elections, Justice K S Hegde entering Lok Sabha elections after his tenure as Supreme Court Judge, and many more. While such entrance is uncommon, it threatens the democratic fabric of society. Judges can no longer be seen as a ray of hope for society to provide justice, as such justice may be political justice and not citizen justice.
Threat to Democracy’s Independent Judiciary?
The fabric of democracy is woven uniquely to ensure that while the judiciary is independent in its working, its presence can be felt even in the legislature and executive. The appointment of a few Union authorities and the Collegium system requires the consultation and opinion of the Chief Justice of India. The President can consult the Judiciary for any matter before it.[2]
There are many other instances where there is interaction between the Judiciary and Government, but such interactions do not influence the working of the Judiciary. They are mainly for the harmonious relationship between them. Once there is political interference in the Judiciary, or vice versa, there is no scope for justiciable working following the provisions of the Constitution and the principle of natural justice.
The Judge’s entry into politics is in itself a major setback to the independence of the judiciary, as this now opens the risk of leaking details and functions of the High Court, its judges on the Bench, and many other sensitive aspects which if revealed to the public would undermine its importance and independence. Claims that there was consistent contact with the political party during the period of Judgeship, and mutual approaching of both parties, arriving at a consensus by taking a week off from deciding cases in the Court, all severely question the independence of the Judge in his working at the Bench and pose a lot of questions regarding his conduct as a Judge in the High Court, which can relate to the cases decided, the way they were decided, the non-following of customs, publicly giving interviews in news channels, etc. The Judge in the public field is susceptible to loads of political influences, inclinations, biases, and even to the extent of facing pressures and threats to life and family. His main duty is to decide cases fairly and transparently, giving clear legal and logical reasons for the decision. The fabric of democracy is woven well till here. But when the Judge resigns from his post as Judge and joins a political party, he puts the Judiciary at peril. The oath administered to him may be applicable only during his tenure as a Judge, but the acts of adhering to the same seem questionable with him claiming to have had connections with the political party when he was a Judge. The essence of the oath was not followed and adhered to. He had displayed affection towards the party by deciding the majority of the cases against the TMC Government. While such decisions are not criticised only from political angles, they may have genuine legal grounds for such decisions, but one would never presume or infer that such decisions would have potential political backing. This questions the working of the judiciary in making decisions on cases, reducing the trust of the people approaching it.
Conclusion
Justice has no form, yet it can be seen even by a blind person. Justice can be delivered through any means, justified or unjustified, which can include violence or revenge. But such acts can be called ‘justice delivery’ by some people. Although they can be charged for taking the law into their own hands, such situations are inevitable when the real justice delivery system is rigged or coloured with political influences. The post-retirement benefits of leaning in favor of political influences are not a secret, with appointments and benefits given to those favoring the ruling government. This poses severe doubt and questions the genuineness of deciding cases before the Courts which involve the Governments as parties, especially in policy cases. Taking the law into one’s own hands would be more justified as the justice provided by ‘politically coloured’ Benches would not be appreciated even by a colourblind man. The Judiciary must prohibit such events from happening, where political justice is delivered instead of fair justice, but such events seem inevitable with consistent occurrences of events involving the Judiciary’s entrance into politics or the Judiciary enjoying the benefits from the Government for supporting or favouring its politics.
[1] Govt notifies resignation of Calcutta HC judge Abhijit Gangopadhyay, ThePrint (Mar. 18, 2024), https://theprint.in/india/govt-notifies-resignation-of-calcutta-hc-judge-abhijit-gangopadhyay/2006099/
[2] Article 143, The Constitution of India, 1950.