The demand of impeachment against a judge is a grave matter. Over one hundred Opposition members of Parliament have moved to impeach the Madras High Court judge, G.R. Swaminathan, for “undue favouritism”. The judge had instructed the Subramaniya Swamy Temple in Tamil Nadu to revive the tradition of lighting a lamp near a pillar close to the Sikandar Badushah Dargah. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam government had refused to allow this, inviting contempt proceedings. The Opposition claimed that the judge had favoured a particular community which went against the secular ideal of the Constitution. There has been a response to this from the judicial fraternity as well. Fifty-six former judges of the Supreme Court and high courts issued a statement condemning the move as intimidating the judiciary and encroaching on the independence of the courts. It mentioned other incidents of over-stepping by governments and political parties every time there was a judgment that went against their ideological or political beliefs. The statement compared the impeachment move to the time in the Emergency when the political dispensation had tried to coerce judges and said that this was an effort to weaponise impeachment to create pressure.
The former judges’ emphasis points to the separation of powers by which democracy is balanced on three pillars — the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The areas of each of the three pillars must be well-defined so that all sides can acknowledge the limits. Encroaching on the judiciary’s territory would cause an imbalance. The judges’ statement also said that impeachment was too serious a demand for the case in point. While this is no doubt relevant, it has to be asked whether the Madras High Court judge’s direction could be perceived as worrying at a sensitive time. In a secular, democratic State, accountability is not only important, but also equal for all. The former judges’ statement said that the Opposition’s move did not represent a reasoned criticism of a judicial decision. But there must be well-balanced reason on both sides. Balance is not one-sided: the courts have always provided an example of balance. At a time that the slightest provocation may set off tensions between communities, the judiciary has to lead the way to perceivable restraint and impartiality. This situation is confusing for the public. The steadiness of balance also depends on people’s respect and trust. Nothing should destabilise that.