Basic theme: Editorial on civil servants' letter to Kiren Rijiju

 The letter, which had around 90 signatories, ‘unequivocally condemned’ what the writers saw as a concerted attack by the government on the collegium system, the Supreme Court and judicial independence

Kiren Rijiju: File picture

TT Editorial Board   |   05.04.23 : Calling a spade a spade has become rare. Former civil servants decided to do precisely that in a letter to the Union law minister, Kiren Rijiju, after his recent labelling of some retired judges, lawyers and experts as part of the ‘anti-India gang’ because they criticised the government’s attacks on the collegium system of appointments. The letter, which had around 90 signatories, ‘unequivocally condemned’ what the writers saw as a concerted attack by the government on the collegium system, the Supreme Court and judicial independence. This could mean that the government was looking for a pliant judiciary since it also kept returning the names of deserving candidates to judges’ chairs. Judicial independence being ‘non-negotiable’, attacks on it were a form of ‘executive overreach’. It breached the Constitutional separation of powers, yet all organs of the State were bound by Constitutional provisions. The letter’s importance lay particularly in this implied emphasis on the basic structure doctrine. That includes, among other features, the supremacy of the Constitution, its federal and secular character, the democratic edifice it has created, and the rights and liberties of the people. Without it as protection, democracy would no longer be guaranteed.

Since judicial independence is a crucial part of this structure, the letter-writers objected to Mr Rijiju’s attack on public-spirited persons who criticised the government’s attitude. That he had said that anyone ‘who worked against the country’ would have to pay the price smacked of ‘authoritarianism’, while identifying government with country — a trick of rhetoric typical of the Narendra Modi-led government. Authoritarianism is also manifested in the refusal to engage with any issue. The letter pointed out that there was a need to discuss ways to improve the collegium system, but the law minister and the vice-president were more interested in ‘venomous barbs’. The letter served a double purpose. While declaring the non-negotiability of judicial independence, it laid out, strongly but logically, the different aspects of the government’s interference, arrogance and the unacceptability of its attacks on dissent. Its defence of the basic structure of the Constitution through not just its arguments but also its firm but reasonable tone is invaluable. On the other hand, the letter is a guiding document for the people, because it alludes to those issues that need fighting for. Sharpening awareness is of primary importance.