What 600 lawyers have written to CJI?

There has been notable activity within India’s higher judiciary recently. A letter, collectively signed by approximately 600 members of the bar, including prominent lawyer Harish Salve, was addressed to the Chief Justice of India. The letter expresses support and solidarity during a time when the court is perceived to be under significant pressure from parties seeking to undermine its integrity.

While such actions might be viewed as typical bar politics, especially considering that bar council elections in some states, notably West Bengal, are fought on party symbols, the situation took a different turn when Prime Minister Narendra Modi endorsed the letter. He shared the text of the lawyers’ letter of support and solidarity, along with an interesting comment highlighting the Congress’s demand for a “committed judiciary” fifty years ago.

This situation harks back to 1973 and later in 1977, when Indira Gandhi’s government executed two notable supersessions in the appointment of the Chief Justice of India. Each decision was politically charged and carried significant implications. In fact, each was directly associated with a significant order of the top court during that tumultuous decade.

In April 1973, the first significant supersession occurred when the three senior-most judges, Jaishanker Manilal Shelat, A.N. Grover, and K.S. Hegde, were passed over for the appointment of Ajit Nath Ray as the Chief Justice of India. In response, the three judges who were superseded resigned. The backdrop to this event was the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, where a 13-judge bench ruled by a narrow margin of seven to six, establishing the concept of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. Ray was among the six judges who dissented, rejecting the idea of the basic structure. Interestingly, the three judges who were superseded were among those who played pivotal roles in establishing the Basic Structure doctrine, for which generations of Indians are indebted to them.

The second supersession occurred in January 1977, just before the withdrawal of the Emergency. Despite the changing political landscape, Mrs. Gandhi ensured that the judge she deemed most inconvenient, Justice H.R. Khanna, was not spared. Instead, M.H. Baig was appointed as the Chief Justice of India, and Justice Khanna resigned. Justice Khanna likely foresaw this outcome following the 1973 supersessions. Notably, he was one of the seven judges who formed the majority in the Kesavananda Bharati case. However, his most significant act came as the lone dissenter in the controversial Emergency-era habeas corpus case, known as the ADM Jabalpur case, where he opposed the government’s stance on the curtailment of civil liberties. Although Justice Khanna never ascended to the position of Chief Justice of India, he remains one of the most iconic judges in Indian history, if not the most iconic.

socialist agenda, as mandated by her voters. Her core group was associated with a deeply Sovietized hard-left ideology. Consequently, there was a perceived need for judges who would better comprehend and support her efforts to implement what was seen as the popular will.

In this context, judges were expected to be “committed” to the “popular” approach to governance by an elected government. Mohan Kumaramangalam, a prominent Communist figure in her cabinet, is often credited with initially proposing the concept of a “committed judiciary.” One common trait among dictators is the desire for “perfect” institutions, as they believe only they are capable of creating and safeguarding such institutions. Mrs. Gandhi attempted to mold the judiciary into such an institution through her acts of supersession. This is the historical context from 1973 that the prime minister was referring to.