Opposition's move to impeach CJI Dipak Misra has unfortunate after-effects

Leaders of seven Opposition parties in the Rajya Sabha have moved to begin the process of impeaching Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. The importance of this development in constitutional terms cannot be overstated. It threatens to disturb the delicate relationship between the legislature and the judiciary, as well as to complicate questions of judicial independence and the public estimation of judicial probity. For this reason, the step should have been taken only as a last resort, and with no political payoff. But it is far from clear that this is in fact the case. From the statements made by the Opposition leaders in this regard, it appears that the Opposition wishes to establish, through an impeachment motion, that the judiciary and the executive are too close. This is not the purpose of impeachment, nor is it related to the substance of the charges levelled by the Opposition against the chief justice.

The charges against Chief Justice Misra certainly deserve to be carefully answered. The head of India’s judiciary should be above reproach, and the CJI could consider clearing the air about these allegations before they take on a life of their own in public perception. This would be an important step towards restoring faith in the judiciary, which has been undermined by several recent steps. That said, there is little or no doubt that the Opposition’s move to impeach the chief justice is doomed to fail. Thus, it is clear that the Opposition should not have moved ahead and that they have done so with a cynical eye towards the political benefits of doing so. 

This is unfortunate — politicians should not play games with the reputation of the judiciary as a whole or that of individual judges. By moving for impeachment knowing full well that the charges are insufficient for widespread enough support for the motion to succeed, the Opposition, led by the Congress Party, is simply seeking to punish the judge through humiliation and damage to his reputation. This is far too casual an approach towards a matter of high constitutional propriety, and damages the Opposition’s reputation as much, if not more, as it punishes the judge. As this newspaper has previously argued, the constitutional set-up and India’s institutions have suffered under the current government. It now appears as if the Opposition is as cavalier about institutional strength as is the government, if it is willing to damage the entire institution of the judiciary in order to score a political point or punish an unsympathetic justice.

The precedent being set by the Opposition is dangerous. Judges need to be able to rule independently of political interference. Preserving that independence is the purpose, for example, behind the current disagreement over how judges should be appointed to the higher judiciary. But if a judge fears that his rulings, if unpopular with a slice of the political class, will cause him to have to endure impeachment proceedings, then the entire structure of judicial independence will be undermined. While the Chief Justice should certainly speak out and clear the air about the five charges levelled against him, the Opposition has more to answer for, given that it has severely weakened the separation of powers and undermined the Constitution.