He stated, “Constitution Will Have to be Changed for Hindu Nation: This is Not Possible,” emphasizing that such a change would require constitutional amendments, which are unlikely due to the lack of political consensus.
NEW DELHI: Former Supreme Court Justice Madan Bhimrao Lokur, a prominent voice in India’s judiciary and the Chairman of the UN Internal Justice Council, has shared his concerns about pressing issues impacting India’s democracy and judicial system.
Justice Lokur addressed the contentious topic of declaring India a Hindu nation, reiterating that secularism is an essential part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
He stated, “Constitution Will Have to be Changed for Hindu Nation: This is Not Possible,” emphasizing that such a change would require constitutional amendments, which are unlikely due to the lack of political consensus.
He advocated for open discussions on sensitive matters but cautioned against inflammatory remarks that could harm social harmony.
Justice Lokur reflected on the state of judicial independence, noting that systemic issues like the “Master of the Roster” remain unresolved.
This system, which gives the Chief Justice of India (CJI) the sole authority to assign cases to specific benches, raises concerns about transparency. He also pointed out delays in judicial appointments, citing the case of Saurabh Kripal, whose appointment has been pending for over six years. These delays, he argued, undermine public trust in the judiciary.
The private interactions between judiciary members and political figures also drew his attention. Referring to former CJI DY Chandrachud inviting Prime Minister Narendra Modi for a private Ganpati Puja, Justice Lokur warned of the risks such practices pose to judicial impartiality.
“It is common for the Prime Minister and Chief Justice to meet at official functions, such as those related to Lokpal elections or family events like marriages or bereavements. However, private invitations could set a problematic precedent,” he remarked.
“If such practices become regular, judges across the country might start inviting Chief Ministers or Governors to personal events, diluting the perception of judicial independence.”
Justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court made headlines for his statement at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) program, asserting, “The country will run according to the majority.” His remarks drew criticism, particularly regarding the appropriateness of the VHP event being held within the Allahabad High Court premises.
Commenting on the issue, he stated, “Programs like these should not take place in judicial premises. The context and venue of his statement send a concerning message.”
The Supreme Court reportedly summoned Justice Yadav to discuss the incident, though the details of the closed-door meeting remain undisclosed.
Symbolism in the judiciary came under scrutiny as well. Justice Lokur questioned the removal of the blindfold from the statue of the Goddess of Justice during CJI Chandrachud’s tenure. Traditionally, the blindfold represents impartiality and equality before the law.
Commenting on the change, he said,
“The blindfold represented equality before the law, ensuring that decisions were not influenced by the identity of the person in the dock. Without it, there’s a risk of justice appearing partial to powerful figures or politicians.”
India’s three newly introduced criminal laws and telecommunication legislation have raised alarms regarding fundamental rights and the potential for mass surveillance. He argued that these laws could change constitutional freedoms and empower authorities disproportionately.
“Such laws may restrict the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. Mass surveillance, like the Pegasus controversy, could stifle open communication and dissent,” warned a rights advocate.
“Even now, there are cases of police misusing or misinterpreting the law. Additional powers could exacerbate such misuse,” he observed.
Despite the Supreme Court’s directive to register FIRs against hate speech, Justice Lokur noted the lack of implementation. He argued that while such directives are critical, the police should not rely solely on judicial orders to act against illegal speech.
He drew parallels with the Supreme Court’s effective stance against “bulldozer justice,” which has forced governments to adhere to constitutional mandates, emphasized the contrasting challenges in addressing hate speech.
Justice Lokur raised alarms over the expanded powers granted to the police under new criminal and telecommunication laws, warning of increased misuse. He referred to past incidents, like the use of Pegasus spyware.
He highlighted the staggering backlog of over 5 crore pending cases in Indian courts, attributing the delays to inadequate infrastructure, high judicial vacancy rates, and systemic inefficiencies.
While increasing the number of judges is essential, he noted, “Without proper infrastructure and support staff, increasing the number of judges alone will have limited impact.”
Justice Lokur criticized the Supreme Court for not ordering a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the controversial electoral bond scheme. While the scheme was declared unconstitutional, he argued that questions about shell companies and undisclosed donations remain unanswered. He emphasized the need for transparency in political funding to maintain public trust.
Sharing his experience from the Supreme Court of Fiji, Justice Lokur pointed to procedural efficiencies that India could adopt. He recommended fixed time limits for hearings and enhanced use of written submissions to expedite case proceedings. These practices, he suggested, could significantly reduce delays in the Indian judiciary.
The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) provides free legal aid to individuals with annual incomes of up to Rs 3–4 lakhs. However, experts suggest that this threshold should be raised to Rs 5 lakhs to extend assistance to a larger section of society.
“Free legal aid is a fundamental right for those who cannot afford representation,” said a legal expert. “Raising the income cap to Rs 5 lakhs will empower more citizens to approach the courts with confidence, knowing they can access quality legal support.”
Moreover, NALSA’s infrastructure needs strengthening across all states.
“NALSA must ensure strong and functional legal cells in every state. This includes appointing competent lawyers to handle cases effectively,”
added the expert.
India’s jails are overcrowded, with approximately 75% of inmates being undertrial prisoners. The conditions are dire: prisons designed to hold 100 inmates often house 130 or more, leading to a lack of basic facilities.
“People in jail have their dignity and respect, which must be preserved,” emphasized a prison reform advocate. High-profile cases highlight these challenges—Delhi University professor GN Saibaba, who is 90% disabled, was reportedly denied a wheelchair.
Similarly, activist Stan Swamy, who suffered from Parkinson’s disease, was allegedly denied a straw in jail.
The judiciary must address the issue of prolonged detentions for undertrial prisoners.
“What is the use of keeping people in jail just because the police are still investigating?” questioned a legal activist.
“Think about the accused and their families. The law states that if the punishment for a crime is 10 years, the accused should be granted bail after serving one-third of the time in jail, even if the trial is ongoing.”
Despite these provisions, many prisoners languish in jail for years without conviction.
“If someone has been in jail for three years without proof of their guilt, why should they remain imprisoned?”
The responsibility to inform the courts about such cases lies with jail authorities and NALSA lawyers. While some progress has been made, it remains inconsistent. Undertrial Review Committees, established to monitor such cases, are often ineffective.
“The failure of these committees is a significant reason why thousands remain behind bars unnecessarily,” noted the advocate.
Justice Lokur also addressed the issue of constitutional morality, reiterating Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s belief that a constitution’s success depends on the integrity of those implementing it. He criticized officials for delaying decisions, arguing that such actions, while not illegal, violate constitutional morality. He called for greater responsibility and accountability from leaders in upholding the principles of the Constitution.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
