Former Supreme Court Judge Kurian Joseph has stirred a controversy by asking the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to drop the Supreme Court’s motto “Yato Dharmastato Jaya” (Where there is Dharma, there is Victory). Speaking at an event organised by left-liberals and the controversial portal The Wire, Former Justice Joseph suggested that the Supreme Court’s motto diverges from the national motto and, by implication, the national ethos. “Truth is the Constitution. Dharma is not always the truth. Dharma is the discharge of your duty in terms of the need of the hour.” he said.
Interestingly, at a seminar in 2018, Former Justice Joseph equated the Catholic Church to the Preamble of India in 2018. “The Catholic Church is one that has always assimilated in itself all the traditions and cultures brought in by the believers from all over the world. This is similar to the preamble of our Constitution, which starts with the word ‘We’.” He added that the “one person who holds this Church in a single entity is the Pope”.
Former Justice Joseph’s argument has raised several concerns. Firstly, he completely ignored the nuanced role of the judiciary in a democracy. The motto of the apex court is a testament to its unique role in interpreting the law and delivering justice. It encapsulates the essence of judicial deliberation, especially when the judgment is not just about legal correctness but also signifies moral and ethical righteousness.
Former Justice Joseph ignored the fact that the Supreme Court must serve as a check on the powers of the executive and the legislature to ensure that all actions align with the Constitution of the country. The motto of the Supreme Court is a symbol of separation of powers. It emphasises that the judiciary works according to the Constitution of India and the principles of justice it embodies.
The Supreme Court’s motto is distinct and deeply rooted in the values of truth, justice and righteousness. It reflects the apex court’s commitment to uphold the Constitution, which is not limited to textual interpretations. It symbolises a broader responsibility to ensure legally sound, morally and ethically rooted justice.
The Shloka that the Supreme Court uses as its motto is from the revered Hindu epic Mahabharata and revolves around justice. Furthermore, Dharma in Hinduism is in direct harmony with Justice, and does not allude to the popular usage of the word ‘Dharma’ as a translation for religion. The Sanskrit word Dharma rather signifies justice, truth, and righteous duty.
Suggesting that it aligns differently from the Constitution’s ethos is nothing but a blunt attempt to ignore the history and culture of the country.
During his address at the event, he also commented on the functioning of the Supreme Court, particularly regarding the Master of the Roster system and administrative committees. Though it may appear that he sought transparency and fairness by proposing more stringent regulations, such comments could potentially constrain the discretion of the CJI inadvertently. It may lead to bureaucratic rigidity in the judiciary.
The legal challenges evolve with time. There should be some flexibility in administrative matters so that the Supreme Court has room to adapt to the changes. It ensures that the apex court can respond effectively to the needs of justice. During his address, he also pleaded to controversial advocate Prashant Bhushan, where he raised concerns over the “arbitrary” allocation of cases to specific judges.
Notably, in December 2023, Bhushan had written an angry letter to the CJI objecting to cases allotted to Justice Bela M Trivedi. Other letters complained of irregularities in cases listed before Justice Trivedi – by Dushyant Dave and Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Former Justice Joseph claimed people can now assume what the decision would be just by looking at the judges’ names on the bench. In a way, he hinted the judges work on a specific mindset, though he claimed he did not mean to say that.
It is a fact that advocates in the Supreme Court go on a hunt for a favourable bench. If they fail to do so, the advocates prefer to withdraw the plea. It was seen in the recent case of terror-accused Umar Khalid, where his lawyer, Kapil Sibal, chose to withdraw his bail plea, saying they would “try their luck in the lower court”.
The reason, however, was clearly the fact that the case went to a bench that included Justice Bela M Trivedi. Suppose the arguments of the likes of former Justice Joseph and Prashant Bhushan are considered. In that case, it will become impossible for the apex court to assign cases to any judge without feeling pressure from the outside.