The Supreme Court Bar Association Alleges Neglect of Their Demands and Lack of Consultation

By Surabhi Singh

Newsreel Asia Insight #333
October 27, 2024

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has raised objections to what it calls a “unilateral” decision by India's Chief Justice to alter the iconic “Lady Justice” statue without consulting the body of lawyers. According to the bar, the top court's decision to install a new version of the statue—in a saree, with scales in the right hand, a book symbolising the Constitution in the other, and without the blindfold—is just one of several decisions made without prior consultation.

For example, in September, President Droupadi Murmu unveiled the Supreme Court’s new flag and insignia, featuring the Ashoka Chakra, the Supreme Court building and the Constitution of India. The SCBA alleged that this decision was also made without prior consultation.

Furthermore, the top court is converting the former “Judges’ Library” into a museum. Soon after this plan was proposed, the bar association objected, stating that lawyers had previously requested the space for a library and café. However, work on the museum has begun, according to the SCBA.

It’s not just about the lawyers’ interests. Rather, consulting them can actually help the Supreme Court make better decisions and add value.

The new version of “Lady Justice” could serve as a good case study. Historically, statues worldwide—including India’s—have been based on Justitia from Roman mythology, symbolising impartial justice. Traditionally clad in a robe, this figure holds a balance in one hand and a sword in the other, with a blindfold symbolising justice served “without fear or favour.”

However, in the new statue titled Nyay ki Devi (Goddess of Justice), the blindfold and the sword have been removed. Although Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud reportedly aims to convey that “the law is not blind; it sees everyone equally,” and that courts deliver justice through constitutional means, not force, these changes carry significant implications and could be seen as “radical,” according to the SCBA.

An advocate, not part of the bar association’s executive committee, who wished to remain anonymous, remarked, “The robe holds universal appeal across religions and regions, from Roman emperors to Hindu sadhus, Muslim pilgrims in Mecca and Buddhist monks. The saree and the bindi on the forehead, however, carry a distinctly Hindu connotation that may feel exclusive.”

The advocate further commented that the Indian government has, in recent years, become fixated on statues and symbolic changes like renaming places or building new parliament structures, while the country’s pressing issues—poverty, poor governance, and social inequality—remain unaddressed.

“The courts appear to be following this trend,” he observed, adding, “Indulging in symbolism has often marked the decline of empires. When a government lacks substantive progress, it resorts to gestures like statues and renaming places.”

Numerous persons, who appear to be political prisoners, remain incarcerated, some without trial for years – activist Umar Khalid, for example. Even those recently released, such as G.N. Saibaba, who was freed after a decade in prison only to pass away on Oct. 12 due to multiple health complications, suggests the need for the Supreme Court to introspect rather than engage in symbolic displays.

Besides, Chief Justice Chandrachud, who is set to retire on Nov. 10, has faced public scrutiny for recent statements and appearances.

In September, he shared a photo with his wife and Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a Ganesh Chaturthi celebration, sparking concerns over the principle of separation of powers.

Further, in a recent speech, he commented that his decision in the sensitive Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case, which involved a centuries-old mosque and a contested Hindu temple site, was made after consulting “god”, raising further debate over the intersection of personal beliefs and judicial responsibility.

The SCBA has expressed frustration over being left out of the decision-making process. A recently passed resolution by them stated, “We are equal stakeholders in the administration of justice but these changes, when proposed, were never brought to our attention. We are totally clueless on the rationale behind these changes.”