The traditional depiction of the Lady of Justice includes a blindfold, scales, and a sword, each symbolizing important principles of justice:
- Blindfold: Represents impartiality, meaning justice should be delivered withoutbias or prejudice, regardless of identity, power, wealth, or status.
- Scales: Signify fairness and balance in the weighing of evidence.
- Sword: Symbolizes the enforcement of justice and the power to deliver fairpunishment.
By Changing the statue of the Lady of Justice by removing the blindfold and replacing the word “Justice” with “Constitution” it looks like a message is being sent to mean a significant shift in symbolism:
- Removing the Blindfold: This could imply a shift away from impartiality, suggesting that justice may take into account the identities, status, or circumstances of individuals rather than strictly adhering to a blind, unbiased approach. It might also symbolize transparency, where justice is aware of all factors and sees clearly when making decisions.
- Replacing “Justice” with “Constitution”: This change might emphasize that decisions are guided by the principles, laws, and rights outlined in the constitution itself. It could highlight the idea that all actions and judgments must be rooted in the rule of law as defined by the nation’s constitution, prioritizing constitutional values over abstract concepts of justice.
- Sword: Symbolizes the enforcement of justice and the power to deliver fair punishment.
One may argue that these changes could reflect a more transparent and constitutionally grounded approach to justice, suggesting that judgments are informed by legal principles, rights, and duties set forth in the constitution, with an awareness of context rather than complete impartiality. The symbolism might indicate a focus on adhering to constitutional law as the ultimate guide for justice.
Public perception
However, in view of media reports and information available on various platforms online, it may not change public perception in view of a few of judgments pronounced in contentious issues in past recent past few years involving key issues as follows: -
- Justice Ranjan Gogoi case: The decision of then-Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi to preside over a bench hearing the sexual harassment allegations against him was widely criticized and led to significant controversy. This move was seen by many as a conflict of interest and a violation of the principles of natural justice, where no one should be a judge in their own case. This episode raised serious questions about the standards of accountability and ethics within the Indian judiciary. It highlighted the need for an independent mechanism to handle complaints against judges, separate from the influence of those who hold judicial power. The incident led to widespread calls for judicial reforms to ensure transparency, fairness, and a clear separation of roles when dealing with allegations against high-ranking members of the judiciary. Overall, the public perception of CJI Gogoi’s decision to sit on the bench during his own case was largely negative, with many seeing it as a significant conflict of interest.
- Electoral Bonds: The Supreme Court’s decision not to urgently address the issue of electoral bonds has been criticized by many who believe that these bonds compromise the transparency of political funding and favor the ruling party. Critics argue that the court’s reluctance to intervene has allowed opaque donations to continue, raising concerns about the influence of money in politics and its impacton democratic processes.
- EVM Rigging Allegations: There have been ongoing debates about the integrity of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) used in Indian elections. While the Election Commission has consistently defended the machines’ reliability, critics feel that the Supreme Court has not taken a strong enough stance to investigate these claims thoroughly. This has led to a perception that the judiciary is not fully addressing the concerns about electoral integrity.
- NEET Exam: The Supreme Court’s stance on NEET has also been controversial, particularly regarding the implementation of the exam and the issue of reservation for underprivileged groups. Critics argue that the court has not been sufficiently responsive to the concerns of students and has failed to provide clear and timely decisions, creating confusion and uncertainty for aspirants.
- Delay and Denial of Bail: The court has faced criticism for its approach to granting bail, especially in cases involving political activists, journalists, and dissenters. Delays and denials in granting bail are seen by some as a violation of personal liberty, with the perception that the judiciary is either too cautious or influenced by political considerations when dealing with sensitive cases.
- Cases Against Adani Group – The Supreme Court has faced criticism for its perceived leniency or slow action in cases involving the Adani Group. Allegations of financial irregularities and market manipulation have raised calls for stringent judicial oversight, but some feel that the court has not been proactive enough in ensuring thorough investigations. This has led to scepticism about the court’s independence, with critics suggesting that it might be hesitant to challenge influential business entities closely associated with the government.
- Corruption Allegations Involving SEBI - The handling of corruption allegations against the SEBI chairperson has also affected public trust in the judiciary. Concerns have been raised about possible regulatory failures and lack of accountability within SEBI. Critics argue that the court’s response to these allegations has not been robust enough, leading to suspicions of favouritisms or a lack of willingness to confront financial corruption at high levels.
- Environmental Issues and Deforestation - The Supreme Court’s decisions on matters related to massive deforestation, particularly in the context of large-scale infrastructure projects, have led to significant public backlash. For example, the approval of the Char Dham Road, massive destruction in Uttarakhand and other Hill States, despite warnings from environmentalists about landslide risks and ecological damage, has been seen as prioritizing development over environmental protection. The court’s stance on allowing deforestation for development projects has raised concerns about its commitment to sustainable development and its disregard for long-term ecological consequences.
- Thermal Power Plants – Despite showing concerns on massive pollution by thermal power plants, Govt’s decision to allow end-of-life thermal power plants to continue operating despite environmental concerns has been criticized by environmental groups and the public. Many argue that this decision undermines India’s commitments to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change. Allowing these outdated and polluting plants to operate is viewed as a step backward in environmental regulation and a failure to protect public health and the environment.
- Public Perception and Criticism- These decisions have contributed to a growing perception that the Supreme Court is not sufficiently proactive in holding powerful individuals, corporations, and government bodies accountable. The court’s stance on these issues has led to questions about its independence, impartiality, and willingness to challenge influential interests that may be closely linked to political or economic power. Some believe that the judiciary’s reluctance to take a strong stand on these matters reflects a broader issue of judicial accountability and transparency. This perception has led to a decline in public confidence in the Supreme Court’s ability to act as a check on power and to uphold the principles of justice and environmental protection. Critics argue that for the judiciary to restore its credibility, it must demonstrate a stronger commitment to impartiality, fairness, and the defense of constitutional values, even when dealing with politically or economically sensitive cases. The combination of these issues has led to a growing public perception that the Supreme Court may not be acting as independently or impartially as expected. Some view the judiciary as being slow to take decisive action in matters of public interest, especially when political or powerful entities are involved. This has raised concerns about the erosion of the rule of law, judicial accountability, and the protection of citizens’ rights in the face of state power.
- Despite these criticisms, it is important to note that the Supreme Court continues to have a significant role in upholding constitutional values and delivering landmark judgments. However, the perception of inconsistency and perceived delays in addressing crucial issues have led to a decline in public trust in the judiciary among some sections of society. This has sparked debates on the need for reforms to ensure greater judicial transparency, independence, and accountability.