On paper, we are proud of our democracy. We love to preen about how democracy has taken firm root in India even as it flounders in the rest of South Asia. In reality, however, there are many things about our democracy as it operates – criminals in politics, rampant corruption, to mention just two, that make most of us squirm.
But there are also occasions, admittedly rare, when our democracy does us proud. As it did on Wednesday when the Delhi High Court, in a landmark ruling, held that all power, including judicial power, is accountable to the highest law of the land, the Constitution. Justice S Ravindra Bhat is bang on when he says, ‘Holders of power are expected to live by the standards they set, interpret or enforce, at least to the extent their office demands.’
The Court’s ruling came in the context of an appeal filed against an earlier High Court order staying a Central Information Commission (CIC) order asking the Supreme Court to furnish information on judges’ assets under the RTI Act and is likely to be challenged. However, it would now be extremely difficult for any bench to dispute the basic soundness of the argument that, ‘declaring personal assets is an essential ingredient of contemporary acceptable behaviour’. Remember, it was the same Supreme Court that was instrumental in getting politicians to declare their assets. So how can it look the public in the eye and claim another law for itself?
Yes, it is true there could be frivolous petitions. More importantly, such petitions could be used to pressurise the judiciary. But only if the judiciary has something to hide! If assets have been acquired honestly, as is case with most of our judiciary (though, sadly, not all, as the Chief Justice has himself stated) there is no reason why any member of the judiciary should fear.
Judges, moreover, are expected to dispense justice without fear or favour. If the Italian mafia today is a pale shadow of what it once was, the credit goes to judges like Judge Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellini who refused to be cowed down by threats and paid for it with their lives. That might be an extreme example. But the point is fear of threats cannot be a reason for lack of transparency. The judiciary, like Ceasar’s wife, must not only be above all suspicion, it must also be seen as such.