"When the judgment came about cancelling the remission of the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, many of the headlines and commentators said that faith in the judiciary is being restored. The fact that the word ‘restored’ was being used is an indication that there was a loss of faith," said Justice Madan B Lokur, former judge of the Supreme Court of India.
At the 17th edition of the Jaipur Literature Festival, Justice Lokur sat down for an interview with The Quint about the state of the Indian judiciary, his dissatisfaction with the Article 370 verdict, and more.
Read edited excerpts below.
In the recent past, you've said on many platforms that you're unhappy with the Supreme Court's verdict on the abrogation of Article 370. Could you tell us why?
The Supreme Court did not answer one very important question that had arisen, namely whether a state can be broken up into union territories. That question rose squarely and this was the best opportunity.
I hope this opportunity doesn’t come again because that would mean that another state gets broken up into union territories. The Supreme Court should have answered that question.
Were there any other reasons apart from the lack of clarity on the question of statehood?
I’m not particularly happy about the reasoning given by the Supreme Court in upholding the abrogation of Article 370 as it existed, and the introduction of a new Article 370.
There is also a tendency to write very long judgments running into hundreds of pages. I don’t think it was necessary to write such a long judgment in the Article 370 case.
In an older interview, you had said, "If all judges are equal, why should certain kind of cases go to a particular judge?" Could you please elaborate on that?
There is a perception that certain kinds of cases are going to particular judges. This perception is not recent. It’s been there for a long time, maybe five or six years. I don’t think that should happen.
It’s not that a particular judge should be selected to hear a particular kind of case, which is politically sensitive or which is otherwise sensitive.
That gives a feeling that why is this particular judge being chosen to decide these kind of cases.
The Supreme Court recently celebrated its diamond jubilee. What is something that needs to change or be done better, going ahead?
There was a time, not so long ago, when the Supreme Court was known as the ‘People’s Court’. I think we need to get back to that position or that situation where the people of the country can proudly say that the Supreme Court is the people’s court. That, I think, is the biggest reform that is necessary.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)