Lawyers’ body Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) on Monday strongly criticised Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s observation last week that “trade unionism has been largely responsible for stopping industrial growth in the country”.
The CJAR also dubbed “unacceptable” a CJI-led bench’s order staying the University Grants Commission’s regulations on promoting equity in higher educational institutions, devised to protect the interests of SCs, STs, OBCs and economically weaker sections.
“The unconscionable remarks made by the Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, during two important hearings on 29th January. These remarks have attacked people’s fundamental rights to work and equality, and diminished faith in the Supreme Court. The verbal observations made in these two important cases represent a troubling departure from the constitutional discipline, erudition and restraint expected of a judge occupying the highest judicial office in the country,” the CJAR statement said.
The CJAR is represented by prominent civil liberties activists like Prashant Bhushan, Alok Prasanna Kumar, Cheryl D’souza, Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri.
The organisation regretted that while dismissing a PIL seeking a comprehensive legal framework and enforcement of minimum wages for domestic workers, CJI Kant had observed that “trade unionism has been largely responsible for stopping industrial growth in the country”, that such unionisation doesn’t work, and that “once minimum wages are fixed, people may refuse to hire” and “every household will be dragged into litigation”, with the workers becoming the ultimate sufferers.
“Such utterances, delivered by the Chief Justice’s bench, are not casual remarks. Apart from being reflective of a judge’s personal biases, they carry the weight of institutional authority. Such statements can go on to influence how the judiciary at all levels responds to the lived realities of the marginalised,” the CJAR said.
“Domestic workers in India have remained outside formal systems of social security with little legal protection. They are exploited due to the lack of a dedicated rights-based framework,” it added.
Referring to the staying of the UGC regulations aimed at preventing caste bias, the organisation said this ruling too was “a dramatic reversal of the court’s position on the need for such regulations to protect Dalit, Bahujan and Adivasi students from
discrimination on university campuses”.
“As unacceptable as the order was, we are also constrained to call out the manner in which the hearing unfolded where unwarranted observations were made on potential ‘misuse’ of the regulations by Dalit, Bahujan and Adivasi students. No empathy was shown towards the student victims of casteist violence,” the statement said.