'Politicians can do symbolism by changing the names of places and museums.'
'Judges need not be seen to be craving for approval from the public.'
Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud last week unveiled a new statue of Lady Justice, ostensibly to shed its colonial past.
The new statue does not have a blindfold, is clad in a sari, and carries the Constitution of India in her hand instead of a sword.
The one thing that has not changed is the scales of justice held by the old statue.
What does this new statue signify for the justice delivery system?
Syed Firdaus Ashraf/Rediff.com spoke to Supreme Court Senior Advocate Mathews J Nedumparam, who has written an open letter expressing concern over the new statue of Lady Justice.
How do you see this new statue which is not blindfolded and carries the Constitution rather than a sword?
It is not the right step to take. The concept of blindfolded justice comes from the Goddess Justitia, meaning justice is impartial. Blindfold does not mean justice is blind, but justice is impartial. It means justice is delivered without fear or favour.
But in popular perception, if you say it in Hindi, it is andha kanoon, or justice is blind, and therefore the blindfold had to go.
This is because in India the legal system has been subjected to so much of abuse which often results in denial of justice.
What about the sword? Is it not good to replace it with the Constitution?
The sword in the hands of the statue means the judicial decision is the final authority.
The sword indicates that the judicial order is binding on all.
If you start saying right or wrong, then it is no longer a court.
If the court says 1+1=0 then that is an order. It can only be changed by subjective appeal known to law. Otherwise, how will you enforce the law?
The court is not a place where you can please everybody.
If you commit a murder and are sentenced by a court to be hanged, then the decision has to be given effect.
Why not the Constitution rather than the sword?
The sword is part of the concept of administration of justice. The sword has symbolic meaning. Goddess Justitia means justice is impartial and the judiciary is binding (on the public).
Some say it is a colonial legacy from the British era that we need to give up.
All our legal system comes from Rome.
Our jurisprudence comes from Rome.
You say judges cannot be criticised. The honesty and integrity of judges cannot be questioned. About the knowledge where judges can be questioned, where does this come from? It comes from Rome.
The concept of equality in our law comes from Aristotle. Even before Christ, parts of Great Britain were a part of the Roman Empire.
But then we changed the Indian Penal Code to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita to make it more Indian.
It is very inappropriate, and just symbolism.
Everything is symbolic and we have enough of symbolism. Politicians can do symbolism by changing the names of places and museums. Judges need not be seen to be craving for approval from the public.
Do you feel the new statue of Lady Justice was for public approval?
Yes, because if you recall, earlier judges were not known outside the legal fraternity. Judges were men of character then and known for sacrifice. They never sought any publicity. They were men of character and (today) the courts have usurped to themselves the power of the Executive and Legislature to become a super Parliament.
Today everybody wants to become a celebrity.
Does this new statue of Lady Justice not look more Indian than Roman?
What is Indian in it? It is just a copy of the old Lady Justice statue. This is so sad.
By changing the statue people are not going to get justice immediately.
When someone told me that they have changed the Lady Justice statue I could not believe it. I thought someone was playing a prank on me.
In a democracy the right to criticise is a right. If you do not allow (citizens) to criticise there will be a decay of the system.
This is what happened with the Catholic Church as there was no way you could criticise the Pope.
You have contempt of court jurisdiction even today. Unfortunately, we have contempt of court in our Constitution in Articles 215 and 129. It has to be put to disuse if not amended.
I have filed two writ petitions over certain provisions of contempt of court. One is in the Bombay high court and another in the Kerala high court.
(Article 215: Every high court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Information: Kind courtesy indiankanoon.org)
(Article 129: The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Information: Kind courtesy indiankanoon.org)
The scales of justice has been retained in the new statue. Are you happy with that?
Our grievance is that we are not holding that weighing scale properly. This is a problem.
All writ petitions in Article 32 except for a few are dismissed. (Article 32 grants every individual the right to move the Supreme Court of India for enforcement of their fundamental rights). This Article is entertained only for very important persons when they approach the court, and all others are dismissed.
I feel you must repeal it because what is the need for it? There is no need for Article 32 in the Constitution.
