By: Shashanka Das
Former Supreme Court Judge Kurian Joseph has ignited a contentious discussion within legal and intellectual circles by calling for the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to reconsider the Supreme Court’s motto “Yato Dharmastato Jaya” (Where there is Dharma, there is Victory). His remarks, delivered at an event organized by left-leaning intellectuals and the controversial news portal The Wire, have drawn scrutiny and debate.
Joseph’s critique, articulated during the event, challenges the alignment of the Supreme Court’s motto with the national ethos, implying a divergence from the core principles of the country. He posited, “Truth is the Constitution. Dharma is not always the truth. Dharma is the discharge of your duty in terms of the need of the hour.”
This isn’t the first time Joseph’s statements have stirred controversy. In a seminar back in 2018, he likened the Catholic Church to the preamble of India’s Constitution, emphasizing its assimilative nature and unity under the Pope.
However, Joseph’s latest argument has raised several concerns among legal scholars and observers. Firstly, it disregards the nuanced role of the judiciary in a democracy. The Supreme Court’s motto symbolizes its unique responsibility in interpreting the law and delivering justice, encompassing not only legal correctness but also moral and ethical righteousness.
Moreover, Joseph’s assertion overlooks the judiciary’s vital function as a check on the powers of the executive and legislature, ensuring alignment with the Constitution. The motto underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional principles and ensuring justice prevails.
The contention over the Supreme Court’s motto extends beyond semantics; it delves into the values deeply ingrained in Indian culture and legal tradition. Derived from the Mahabharata, the motto resonates with Hindu concepts of justice and righteousness, transcending religious boundaries to embody universal principles.
Joseph’s remarks on the functioning of the Supreme Court, particularly regarding the Master of the Roster system and administrative committees, also merit consideration. While advocating for transparency and fairness, his suggestions could inadvertently restrict the CJI’s discretion and impede judicial adaptability to evolving legal challenges.
Furthermore, Joseph’s association with controversial figures like Prashant Bhushan, known for his confrontational stance against the judiciary, raises eyebrows. Bhushan’s recent objections to case allocations hint at broader discontent with judicial processes, potentially undermining judicial independence and impartiality.
The concern over case allocations underscores a deeper issue within the legal fraternity, where lawyers seek favourable benches to advance their agendas. Such practices risk eroding public trust in the judiciary and compromising the integrity of judicial proceedings.
In conclusion, while Joseph’s critique sparks important discussions on the judiciary’s role and processes, it also underscores the need for a balanced approach that upholds constitutional principles while fostering judicial transparency and fairness. As debates continue, it is imperative to safeguard the judiciary’s autonomy and integrity, ensuring justice remains paramount in the legal landscape. (The author can be reached at shashankadas0007@gmail.com)
