ON HOLD

The uncertainty about Karnataka Chief Justice P. D. Dinakaran's elevation to the apex court continues, a circumstance that has helped no one, least of all the judge himself. Apart from the rumours and whispers that it has bred, there has been the recurring spectacle of advocates protesting Justice Dinakaran's appearance in the Karnataka high court by, amongst other disruptions, abstaining from work. The uncertainty is also hurting the judiciary's image. It is not just that in the absence of clear decisions, rumours grow and aspersions are cast. It is also that the higher judiciary's credibility in regulating its most sensitive appointments is seen to be at stake.

 

The question mark over Justice Dinakaran's elevation to the Supreme Court draws from a report from the collector of the district in which the judge is alleged to have grabbed land. The delay calls into question the appointment procedure. The Supreme Court, in 1993 and later in 1998, had decided that court appointments would be made by its five senior-most judges. But on the procedure for external inputs and inquiries, there is perceived to be ambiguity. Which is why, since complaints have surfaced against Justice Dinakaran, there has been no set way to go about it. Former Chief Justice J.S. Verma points to a simple way out. In an editorial page article in this newspaper on Monday, he argued that the law, which he helped lay in 1993, is clear. If there is even a hint of impropriety or whiff of scandal, the judge must not be appointed. Even if there is a possibility that upon subsequent and thorough investigation the judge could be proved to be absolutely innocent, the reputation of the Supreme Court calls for erring on the side of caution. Justice Verma also argues that the executive can play a role in this.

 

The point is, this issue is turning out to be less about Justice Dinakaran's case and more about the capacity of the system to proceed in what could be uncharted waters. For every day that the controversy drags on, the judiciary's image gets affected. The month-long impasse has sparked a public trial of the judge, which in itself is not fair. The collegium or the executive must act swiftly, and their actions, above all, must preserve the image of the world's most powerful court.