It began with the tenure of chief justice Dipak Misra and has consistently troubled the tenures of all his successors. Now, with Justice N V Ramana in the line of succession, slated to occur in April next year, also coming under a cloud, there is yet another confirmation of such an evil spell permeating the hallowed office of the CJI.

Dipak Misra’s assumption of office was marked by acrimony over long-pending allegations that he had acquired public land intended for the landless poor by submitting a false affidavit. It was alleged that Misra misrepresented facts in securing the allotment of land meant for distribution among the landless for agricultural purposes. Even formal communications were sent to the then chief justice, J S Kehar, warning that his nomination of Dipak Misra as his successor would ‘severely compromise the independence of the judiciary.

Dipak Misra’s tenure proved to be one of the darkest phases of Indian judiciary when four of his own colleagues enacted a rebellion in full gaze of the public, alleging that the CJI was using his power of the roster to pick and choose benches that would decide sensitive cases in a desired manner. The infamous press conference, addressed by the four senior-most judges, led by J Chelameswar, was meant to bring to the nation’s attention the goings-on in the highest echelons of Indian judiciary.

Misra also had the ignominy of seeing an impeachment motion being moved against him by the opposition parties, including Congress, NCP, CPI, Samajwadi Party, BSP and the Indian Union Muslim League, for the manner in which he dealt with certain cases and took administrative decisions, including his conduct in the case relating to the medical seats scam.

Misra was succeeded by Justice Ranjan Gogoi, one of his critics who held the unprecedented press conference, and it was thought that his tenure would see the required course correction. But Gogoi’ss tenure was unfortunately marred by even more disgraceful events. In a sort of first, the CJI faced sexual harassment charge from one of his women staff members. And the worst part is that he was cleared of any blame by an in-house committee appointed by Gogoi himself, which amounted to the CJI sitting in judgment in which he was himself the accused.

Incumbent CJI, Justice SA Bobde’s tenure has also not been unblemished. The contempt of court case against activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan for a couple of tweets, one of which showed the CJI riding ‘a Rs 50-lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur, without wearing a mask or helmet, at a time when he keeps the SC on lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice!’.

After a tough posturing in contempt of court proceedings, which saw Prashant Bhushan come up with even a more belligerent response, a bench hearing the case was forced to reduce the sentence to a symbolic one-rupee fine, but the dust has not yet settled down on one of the most uncanny controversies involving Indian judiciary.

It is in this context that one has to see Andhra chief minister Y S Jaganmohan Reddy’s letter to chief justice Bobde saying that Justice Ramana, in the line of succession as the next CJI, had favoured political rival and Telugu Desam Party leader N. Chandrababu Naidu and that the judge’s daughters had purchased land under questionable circumstances in Amravati before the site was chosen for the new Andhra capital.

Of course, there are conspiracy theories being floated about the letter, coming as it is on the eve of a CBI court taking a decision on multiple cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act linked to alleged disproportionate assets by Jaganmohan Reddy. Also, the timing of the letter, coinciding with a meeting the chief minister had with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the approval of central funds for certain state government projects.

Irrespective of whether the letter is prompted by a genuine concern for upholding judicial fairness or motivated by other considerations, such incidents put serious doubt in the minds of people about the independence of judiciary, which is of utmost importance in a democratic setup. (IPA Service)