Finally, with the retirement of Justice Arun Mishra, the blister has busted, courtesy constitutional provision and unlike USA.

The tenure of Justice Mishra till his attaining superannuation was full of controversies for one reason or another.

May it be allocation of supremely sensitive cases or interaction with the members of the bar or the open outburst against his own colleagues or openly extending adulatory adulations for the executive or participating in the collegium of Supreme Court qua the appointment of his own brother as High Court judge from state of Madhya Pradesh or brazenly defying the age-old rule of Judicial discipline concerning Article 141 of the Constitution of India or presiding in the larger bench over his own dissent in land acquisition case.

It was totally indecorous for Justice Mishra to effusively praise openly the Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the eve of international judicial conference 2020. He said that Prime Minister is an “internationally acclaimed visionary and a versatile genius, who thinks globally and acts locally“.

In the wiser perception of Justice Mishra, it may be so, but Judicial restraint was to be exercised lest the message percolates in the public at large that Judiciary is all set for the Ruling dispensation. The government is the biggest litigant and such remarks are likely to affect adversely the principles of impartiality. Our founding fathers for this reason only propounded that the seat of the high court would not be in the capital of state in order to keep the executives away from the Judiciary.

Keeping in view to maintain the high standard of Judicial System with an idea to secure the even-handed Justice for everyone irrespective of the stature and status of the litigant. The role model of the independence is Late Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha, Judge of the Allahabad High Court who by the stroke of his famous judgment set aside the election of sitting Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi.

Another illustrious example is Mrs. Maneka Gandhi’s book namely, ‘Animal Laws of India’ was to be released on 25th April, 1996 by the then sitting Judges of the Supreme Court Justice Kuldeep Singh as Chief Guest, with Justice B N Kirpal as Guest of Honor. When it came to the notice of the Judges that the author of the book has filed her nomination for Lok Sabha Elections to be held in May 1996, both the Judges expressed their inability to grace the occasion in order keep the stream of Justice unhindered.

The author, Mrs. Maneka Gandhi at the last moment solicited the presence of Shri. Nani Palkhiwala, the eminent Jurist of all times. It shows the character and courage of the Judges named, herein before, who were supremely sensitive to not to land in any kind of controversy.

Presently the oath which is taken at the time of appointment under Article 124(6) & (IV) of third schedule of the Constitution of India is not adhered with certain exceptions. Soon-after the elevation or after some time a feeling willy-nilly qua the power pierce that now “I am the master of all that I survey.” Reason being that Supreme Court being the final court.

The enormous number of the right thinking and oath abiding judges have said again and again that since Supreme Court is the final court, this does not mean we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final. The record of the court would reveal in no uncertain terms that the sacrosanct sayings are shining in solitude. The law is being trampled by those who had the pious duty to uphold the majesty of law.

In the annals of Supreme Court, it would be seen that no other Judge including the late Chief Justice A. N. Ray of the emergency era (1975-77) occupied such stupendous space, be it media, social media, or the corridors of the court or any other place as being occupied by Justice Mishra.

He was appointed as an additional judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court on 25-10-1999, and permanent judge on 24th October 2001. He was transferred to Rajasthan High Court in September 2010 and thereafter, appointed as Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court. In December 2012, he was transferred to the Kolkata High Court. Mishra to his credit is the youngest chairman of the Bar Council of India in 1998. Finally, he was elevated to the Supreme Court on 7thJuly, 2014.

The unprecedented fusillade triggered by the four senior judges of Supreme Court by way of press conference against the then CJI (Deepak Mishra) brought the internal working of the Supreme Court to substantial disrepute.

The root and crown of this inconceivable revolt was Justice Arun Mishra being in league with the CJI qua the assignment of sensitive cases. This was not delightedly deemed as a good action by the four judges. But the revolt was not considered a good move by a large section of the society. Another section also voiced in explicit words that extraordinary situations requires extraordinary remedies.

Post the revolt Justice Mishra broke down in customary regular meeting of Judges in Supreme Court. Even in open court out of anger or frustration of and on it was said in a satirical tone that I am a junior judge to neutralize the effect of the revolt.

It is quintessential to make it clear that in the Supreme Court or in the High Courts, in seniority one may be junior or senior to each other’s, but the Judicial powers remains the same. There is no variance with each other. Given the seniority the Judges, follow the protocol while entering or making exit in the court room.

It would not be out of context to mention that in the tenure of Justice Mishra as Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court, some advocates had a spat with Justice Mahesh Bhagwati. The advocates out of anger broke the glass panes of the court.

Justice Mishra with his masterstroke of administrative skill mollified both the advocates and the Judge. At that time, Justice Mishra was eyeing for elevation to Supreme Court. If the matter would have not been resolved amicably it would have resulted in a strike or protest by the advocates which would have certainly retarded the would be elevation.

Undoubtedly, we had unending number of good Judges who owed/owing true allegiance to their Constitutional oath and did not surrender their dignity to overtures of the post etc. etc.

Justice H.R. Khanna was the lone dissenter to the most infamous judgement of ADM Jabalpur case during the period of emergency.

The New York Times, wrote at the time: If India ever finds its way back to the freedom and democracy that were proud hallmarks of its first eighteen years as an independent Nation, someone will surely erect a monument to Justice H R Khanna of the Supreme Court.

Justice A.N. Ray was appointed as the CJI in the most controversial way which led to the resignation of three senior Judge who were superseded, namely J M Shelat, A N Grover and P S Hegde.

The elevation of A N Ray in the most unabashed way was ranked as the blackest day of the Indian democracy. The former CJI, Justice Mohammad Hidayatullah said “this was an attempt of not creating ‘forward-looking Judge’ but the ‘Judge looking forward’ to the plumes of the office of Chief Justice”.

It would also not be out of context to highlight herein that meritorious Judges were not considered by the collegium of Supreme Court. Justice V K Bali, Chief Justice (retd.) of High Court of Kerala who is known for his uprightness, cordiality, homogeneity, courtesy and legal acumen was the victim of the lobby operating within the Judges. Most deeply and depressing is that the Judge junior to him was elevated.

Likewise, Justice K S Jhaveri who remained in the High Court of Rajasthan on transfer from Gujarat High Court. He created history by clearing the backlog. He was so workaholic that all the pending cases pertaining to taxation matters were decided in his tenure which had not seen the light of the day from years together. Later Justice Jhaveri was elevated as Chief Justice to the High Court of Odisha.

The bar in majority over there was not happy with the lawful working as Justice Jhaveri was very strict in adjourning the matters for no cause and especially where the interim order was operating for years together. This was not stomached by the Bar which led to unprecedented strike even Police was called time to time to hold the Majesty of Law. But Justice Jhaveri did not budge from the righteous judicial cause which ultimately cost him his elevation to Supreme Court, courtesy the adverse lobby.

The non-elevation of these Judges or similarly situated Judges may be a serious setback to them personally. But in my humble perception, the society at large has suffered being deprived of deserving Judges to get even handed justice. Unfortunately merit in this country has become the disqualification, the same is evident everywhere without any shred of doubt. The sycophancy and all other ill-conceived things have occupied the greater level.

The author being a practicing advocate in various Constitutional Courts including the Supreme Court after viewing such sordid state of affairs is deeply depressed as to where the Judiciary is destined. The founding fathers of liberation who by their supreme sacrifices secured the freedom from the Britishers for us would also be wailing as to what was dreamt by them and what is happening.

The Prashant Bhushan mustered the exceptional courage like the brave freedom fighters. He did not show his back to the Bench headed by Justice Mishra in the case of Criminal Contempt. The poet, playwright and Politician of UK, namely Joseph Addison said “It is better to die ten thousand deaths than to wound your honor”. What has presently happened has not happened even in the British-India.

The Judiciary of British-India merits to be applauded in majority with minuscule exceptions. Mr. K L Gauba and his illustrious and brave father Mr. Harkishan Lal Gauba both renowned advocates of Lahore High Court in the British-India were convicted under the law of contempt dehors the commission of Contempt by the English Bench presided over by Chief Justice Dougles Young.

Mr. K L Gauba suffered the incarceration of about four months and he wrote books during the incarceration and thereafter also named MAGNA CARTA and others. Privy Council learnt of the conviction (supra) and at the instance of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Secretary of State for India wrote to the government of India that the matter raised in the book authored by Gauba called for an enquiry and was of the view that Chief Justice should face an enquiry or resign.

The then Viceroy communicated Sir Dougles Young (CJ) to quit and accordingly he resigned. This incident indeed is a paragon of the uprightness of the then dispensation of justice, especially when we were slaves.

The indisputable conclusion is that the erring or unethical or those who lacks merits must not have any place in the dispensation of justice. For the removal of such Judges is punctuated with cumbersome procedures namely the impeachment.

Regrettably, after the independence, the first impeachment initiated against Justice V. Ramaswami of Supreme Court met with the horrifying defeat in the Parliament at the instance of the ruling dispensation led by late P V Narsimha Rao of the Congress party.