Two sitting judges of the Karnataka High court have violated principles of judicial conduct by participating in a Brahmin convention and their actions go against the Constitutional ethos, a lawyers’ association has said in a statement, and sought that the judiciary “maintain professional and personal commitment to constitutional morality”.
The All India Lawyers Association for Justice (AILAJ) on Friday, February 7, issued a statement expressing “sincere apprehension and condemnation of the manner in which sitting judges are participating in caste conventions which seems to show the caste system in a positive light”.
Two judges of the Karnataka High Court, Justice V Srishananda and Krishna S Dixit had attended a Brahmin convention organised by the Akhila Karnataka Brahmana Mahasabha on January 19.
AILAJ said the judges’ appreciation of the contributions of Brahmins and the need to respect all communities, might come across “as an argument for plurality, (but) essentially upholds the caste order which divides people into hierarchical and unequal communities in the first place”.
“The Brahmin pride invoked by the judges is not a professional pride but a mark of caste-based supremacy which has thrived by violently suppressing those lowered in the caste order,” AILAJ said.
Justices Shrishananda and Dixit’s attendance at a Brahman convention and their portrayal of “Brahminical casteism in positive light goes against constitutional ethos” and violated the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct formulated by the Judicial Integrity Group, and the Supreme Court’s Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, which was adopted by the full court meeting of the Supreme Court on May 7, 1997, the AILAJ statement said.
The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) adopted a resolution in July 2006.
The Bangalore Principals noted that “as a subject of constant public scrutiny, a judge must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly”.
The Principles also said that a judge, like any other citizen, is entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly, but “in exercising such rights, a judge shall always conduct himself or herself in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary”.
“A judge shall be aware of, and understand, diversity in society and differences arising from various sources, including but not limited to race, colour, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, social and economic status and other like causes,” the Principles said.
AILAJ also said that the judges’ conduct violated the Supreme Court’s Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, which laid down that “Justice must not merely be done but it must also be seen to be done. The behaviour and conduct of members of the higher judiciary must reaffirm the people's faith in the impartiality of the judiciary. Accordingly, any act of a Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court, whether in official or personal capacity, which erodes the credibility of this perception has to be avoided.”
“Every Judge must at all times be conscious that he is under the public gaze and there should be no act or omission by him which is unbecoming of the high office he occupies and the public esteem in which that office is held,” the Restatement said.
AILAJ said that the makers of the constitution led by Dr BR Ambedkar and the judiciary had acknowledged that a modern democratic nation-state could not be built without annihilating caste, a system of graded inequality.
The nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney v Union of India case, which laid down the 50% ceiling in reservations, recognised the historical role of the caste system in perpetuating a distinct form of inequality. It also noted that the Constituent Assembly was “conscious of the historic but difficult task of carving an egalitarian society from out of a bewildering mass of religions, communities, castes, races, languages, beliefs and practices (sic)”.
The SC had said that the members of the Constituent Assembly were aware of the historic injustices and inequities afflicting society and “the imperative of redressing them by constitutional means, as early as possible - for the alternative was frightening… They were conscious of the fact that the Hindu religion - the religion of the overwhelming majority - as it was being practiced, was not known for its egalitarian ethos. It divided its adherents into four watertight compartments…. Poverty there has been - and there is - in every country. But none had the misfortune of having this social division - or as some call it, degradation - super-imposed on poverty. Poverty, low social status in Hindu caste system and the lowly occupation constituted - and do still constitute - a vicious circle.”
Even in the case of Sukanya Shantha vs Union of India, the Supreme Court had held that the Constitution sought to displace a centuries-old caste-based hierarchical social order “that did not recognize the principle of individual equality”.
“Violence, discrimination, oppression, hatred, contempt, and humiliation, towards these communities were the norm. The caste system entrenched these social injustices deeply within society, creating an environment where the principles of natural justice were blatantly disregarded. In this hierarchical system, neutrality was virtually non-existent, and there was an inherent and pervasive bias against those belonging to the oppressed castes. This bias manifested in numerous ways, including exclusion from social, economic, and political opportunities. The caste system ensured that the oppressed castes remained marginalized and deprived of their basic rights and dignity,” the Supreme Court noted.
AILAJ said that although major strides had been made to end casteism, the “impunity of Brahmanism and the inhumanity of caste have unfortunately not disappeared” as was evident in the demands were being made for a separate constitution which would be based on democratic values, but on Sanatana Dharma which is based on the caste system.
“In order to rectify past inadequacies and march ahead towards the constitutional vision, the people tasked with safeguarding the constitution – the judiciary – must stand as the bulwark against all efforts to subvert the constitution and its promise of the annihilation of caste.”
AILAJ also said that the “concerned judges have a longer history of sympathizing with Brahminical patriarchy – a key axis of the caste order”.
On June 22, 2020, while granting bail to a rape accused, Justice Dixit had said that the complainant’s claim of having slept “after the perpetration of the act” because she was tired was “unbecoming of an Indian woman”. “That is not the way our women react when they are ravished”, Justice Dixit had said. These remarks were later expunged. “Such invocation of Indian tradition is quite similar to Hindu majoritarian invocations of Sanatana Dharma,” AILAJ said.
The statement also noted that the Supreme Court had pulled up Justice Srishananda’s remarks calling a certain neighbourhood of Bengaluru as Pakistan, and his remarks to a female advocate about the colour of undergarments of her opponent lawyer.
AILAJ said that it was committed to the annihilation of caste and “seeks that all members of the judiciary maintain professional and personal commitment to constitutional morality”. They called the judiciary to come together and act as the Sentinel On The Qui Vive and a watchful guardian of constitutional morality”. The phrase ‘Sentinel On The Qui Vive’ refers to the Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of the fundamental rights of citizens.