No political pressure in judicial exercise, but in appointments: Justice (Retd) Kurian

Supreme Court's retired judgde Justice Kurian Joseph on Friday said that there is no political pressure in the judicial exercise but there is some interference in matters of appointment of judges.

One of the four senior-most judges of the apex court, Justice Kurian, who retired on Thursday said, "There is no political pressure in the judicial exercise of a judge. No political party has ever approached me to decide a particular case in a particular way. I do believe that there is no such interference as much as exercises of judicial powers are concerned," he said while replying to a question of political interference in Judiciary.

He, however, added, "But in the matter of appointment, the way appointments are being delayed, the appointments are being selectively delayed, all this in a way is interference."

On being asked about the unprecedented press conference that he had addressed in January this year along with three other serving judges of the apex court, he said, "I have no regrets, whatever I did, I did it very consciously. You cannot say fully that the crisis is over (now) because it is an institutional crisis, so it takes a long for the system and practices to change. It is changing, the process of change will continue."

Speaking about the infrastructural developments required in the Supreme Court, he opined, "When the Supreme Court was conceived no one thought that this would be the number of cases that the Court will be required to handle. Therefore, if this is the type of the volume that it has to handle, it requires little bit more infrastructures in terms of courtroom space. Some sort of solution is required because as of now it is jam-packed. As of the technological developments, they are on fast track note. The Supreme Court must go forward as far as the development is concerned."

When asked about different lawmakers making an open statement that the court should not pass judgements which cannot be followed, he said, "Once a judgement is pronounced it's the law of the land in terms of Article 131 and it is binding on all courts and tribunals. If it cannot be followed in terms of a technical or legal problem then the party which faces the problem in implementing it, must come back to court and seek a clarification. That is the proper method to be followed."

On being categorically asked to comment on the Sabarimala verdict and the aftermaths of the same, Justice Joseph opined that regional issues and diversities of the country must also be considered."It is not only about Sabarimala issue but it is a general perspective. People have stronger faith when issues pertaining to constitutional morality or regional issues or issues of public interest are being debated on the judicial side. People will have better and stronger faith, if the bench which considers such issues, there is diversity on such aspects also. For the sake of credibility of the judicial process, I made a blunt observation that it will be non-appropriate if one such issue involving large public interest, constitutional morality, social morality and regional issues, are all considered, with due regard also, if possible, with the diversities which are realities in the country," he said.

Outlining the significance of a judicial order, Justice Joseph said, "A law is made either to prevent disorder or provide an order. When people make law they know that to which disorder they wanted to prevent and which order they wanted to provide. This must be worn in mind by the courts while interpreting the laws.