Rewarding the Pliant Judges

The appointment of former judge of the Supreme Court Justice Abdul Nazeer as the Governor of Andhra Pradesh within five weeks of his demitting the office at the apex court is questionable. There is enough scope to term the conferment of the new position as reward for having delivered judgments that were heartening for the powers-that be.

Although there have been umpteen instances of former judges being appointed in key positions in the past, the latest appointment can easily be linked to his (the judge’s) being part of benches that issued rulings that were favourable to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party establishment. His being a person from a minority community, as is being referred to by the official circles, is merely a red herring and fails to explain the rationale of the BJP suddenly developing love for inclusiveness, as the case is being made out.

Justice Nazeer happens to be the third from the five-judge Supreme Court bench that delivered the title suit in the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi Temple case in favour of the establishment at the Centre. Then chief justice Ranjan Gogoi was given the membership of the Rajya Sabha following his retirement. Another judge, Justice Ashok Bhushan, was appointed the chairperson of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in 2021, four months after his retirement.

The nature of the rulings provide strong testimony of the appointments being quid pro quo and easily fit into the frame of ‘post-retirement positions being reward for pre-retirement judgments’ as explained by late Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, a legal luminary and a BJP stalwart. Not merely the bench that settled the Ayodhya title in favour of the side close to the BJP, Justice Nazeer was also on the benches that bailed out the official side in hugely contentious cases such as Demonetisation and legality of Triple Talaq to entire satisfaction of the ruling dispensation.

The fact that the judge had even addressed the 16th National Council meeting of Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, a lawyers’ body affiliated to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in December 2016, and pandered to their view of decolonization of Indian legal system, may have boosted his credentials with the current dispensation.

It would be futile to argue that the Constitution does not prohibit any such appointment or provides any guidance in such matters. Actions need to be judged by the intent, purpose and circumstances in which they are initiated. And the current appointment barely conceals the element of reward. It also is a modicum of a signal to the entire judicial apparatus of the benefits of being on the side of the dispensation.

There can be little doubt as to how such overt overtures would undermine the independence of the judiciary and compromise the quality of dispensation of justice. It is a recipe for a pliant judiciary and compliant judgments.