NJAC Judgment III: Madan Bhimrao Lokur J

Is it as easy to reach a solution, as it is to verify someone else’s result? You may think you know the answer. But I should tell you – you don’t. If you did you would have been a millionaire. A couple of times over.

Should a Judge prepare his Draft Judgment in the blind? Should Judges have the benefit of reading through what Brothers have already thought and nearly concluded? Hon’ble Justice M.B. Lokur’s ‘Recusal Order’ is an 8 on 10. He surely has a penchant for mathematics and chess (En Passant). I only wish he had not bothered to have read through what others had had to say.

Lokur Saab is no ordinary Judge. I acceded to his claim to originality finally, after reading Surya Vadanan [Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 2015]. Lokur Saab is original in every mouthful.

The first thing that has struck me about his NJAC Judgment is his reverent opinion of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India A.N. Ray. He even notes, without it being absolutely necessary, that, “Chief Justice Ray made no reference to the CAD.” In modern parlance: Ray is a sticky topic. Try and say ‘sticky topic’ real quick, and your tongues would be as tied as it mostly is for Retired and Present Supreme Court Judges while discussing Ray. Lokur Saab is not one such. Truth be told, in Ray’s Full Court Reference – Hon’ble Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia had to read out what I had written, originally. “34 Days short of completing 34 Years of Retirement and hitting a 100…”

Calling Hon’ble Justice Bhagwati ‘inexplicable’, to however a limited extent; Identifying the Minority-Majority battle in the Bharti Judgment are all furthers evidences of the fact, Hon’ble Justice Madan Bhimrao Lokur is no less than a Napoleon guarding the ‘fragile bastion’ of an Independent Judiciary.

The debate cannot be reduced to the acceptance of an unconstitutional but popular decision versus a constitutional but unpopular decision.”

The participation of the CJI as an individual in the NJAC is made farcical by The NJAC Act.”

Thank you Lokur Saab for terming it: “The Last Word Principle”.

Judgment Rating: 7.5/10.

Fun Fact:

It’s the 5th time, in a long time, that, Botswana has been mentioned in a SC Judgment.