The Silence of the Bench
Reading about advocate Mathews J Nedumpara's case, where an astounding 16 judges have recused themselves from hearing his whistleblower lawsuits, leaves me with a profound sense of unease. This isn't just a procedural footnote; it's a glaring siren. When a man, himself an officer of the court, finds the doors of justice repeatedly closing before he can even be heard, what does that say about the system's integrity? The sheer number of recusals from both the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court transforms a personal legal battle into a systemic crisis of confidence.
A whistleblower stands as a solitary figure against powerful forces, armed with little more than conviction and evidence. The judicial system is meant to be the great equalizer, the sanctuary where truth can be weighed impartially. But when judge after judge steps aside, the sanctuary begins to look like a fortress, and the scales of justice appear worryingly unbalanced.
The Echoes of a Trust Deficit
This situation reminds me of a different kind of crisis I faced decades ago. In a 1981 memo at Larsen & Toubro, titled Synopsis: Communication For Productivity, I wrote about breaking through a "communication barrier" and a "motivation-barrier" with our workforce. We were facing a deep-seated trust deficit. The solution wasn't hierarchy or authority; it was radical transparency, open dialogue, and fostering a sense of shared responsibility.
The core idea I want to convey is this — take a moment to notice that I had brought up this thought on the topic years ago. I had already identified that the health of any large institution, be it a corporation or a branch of government, rests on trust. I argued then that to get people involved, you must give them a stake in the process and make them feel responsible for the outcome. Seeing how things have unfolded in Mr. Nedumpara's case, it's striking how relevant that earlier insight still is. The judiciary is now facing its own "trust barrier." The silent withdrawal of 16 judges is the antithesis of the open communication required to maintain public faith. Reflecting on it today, I feel a sense of validation for those principles and also a renewed urgency to apply them to our most sacred institutions.
The Erosion of Faith
The unspoken question hanging in the air is why. Without transparent reasons for these recusals, speculation inevitably fills the void, eroding public trust. Is the case too controversial? Are the entities involved too powerful? This ambiguity is corrosive. It sends a chilling message to every potential whistleblower and every ordinary citizen who believes in the rule of law.
If an advocate like Mathews J Nedumpara faces a seemingly insurmountable wall of judicial silence, what hope does the common person have when challenging injustice? The strength of our democracy is not measured by its powerful institutions, but by how those institutions serve the most vulnerable and the most courageous. When the bench falls silent, it is justice itself that is diminished.
Regards,
Hemen Parekh
Of course, if you wish, you can debate this topic with my Virtual Avatar at : hemenparekh.ai
No comments:
Post a Comment