Supreme Court ... vs Union Of India on 6 October, 1993

M.M. Punchhi, J.
...........................................................................This nine-Judge Bench sat from April 7, 1993, to hear this momentous matter concluding its hearing on May 11, 1993, close to the onset of the summer vacation. I entertained the belief that we all, after July 12.1993, on the re-opening of the Court, if not earlier, would sit together and hold some meaningful meetings, having a free and frank discussion on each and every topic which had engaged our attention, striving for a unanimous decision in this historic matter concerning mainly the institution of the Chief Justice of India, relatable to this Court. I was indeed overtaken when I received the draft opinion dated June 14, 1993 authored by my learned, brother J.S. Verma, J. for himself and on behalf of my learned brethren Yogeshwar Dayal, G.N. Ray, Dr. A.S.Anand and S.P. Bharucha, JJ. The fait accompli appeared a stark reality; the majority opinion an accomplishment. The hopes I entertained of a free and frank discussion vanished....................................
........................................We have prepared a democratic Constitution but successful working of democratic institutions requires in those who have to work them willingness to respect the view-points of others, capacity for compromise and accommodation. Many things which cannot be written in the Constitution are done by convention. Let me hope that we shall show those capacities and develop those conventions..............

............................ The majority opinion, as I have been able to discern and gather, concludes to obliterate this distinction. It follows a path leading to a destination unknown to the Constitution......................


..............................I am in dis-agreement, though regretfully but respectfully, with the views of the majority in virtually re-writing the Constitution to assign a role to the Chief Justice of India, in the whole conspectus of the Constitution, as symbolic in character and to his being a mere spokesman representing the supposed vies of entire judiciary. I also dis- agree, likewise, in the creation of and vesting of powers assumed, in the hands of the oligarcy representing the judiciary as a whole created by adding words to the Constitution by interpretative exercise so to silence the singular voice of the Chief Justice of India of ever. I also disagree to the denial of judicial review on the subject on the supposition that it would be the judiciary's act, as that is against the basic structure of the Constitution. Subject to the views afore-expressed, .....


 leaving however a note of skepticism - Was it worth it?