I have listened to the speeches delivered by the CJI and the Union Law Minister attentively. I am constrained to write this article to state that mere use of lofty language to justify the action of transfer would hardly help in healing the bruised feelings of lawyers and other stakeholders in the administration of justice.
The condemnation of the strikes by the speakers ignores the importance of the preservation of judicial independence, which is the sole object of the strike. If a judge discharging his duties fearlessly, without favour and ill-will, is not protected from the onslaught of the administrative machinery, it would be an end of the judicial system. It cannot be denied that in any national movement against injustice, lawyers have taken a lead role.
In fact, society expects from the lawyer the role of a sentinel on the qui vive to protect their fundamental rights and to question a decision which the society feels oppressive or arbitrary or not intended to serve any public purpose. A strike may halt the proceedings of courts for a day or two, but a decision that jeopardizes the independence of the judiciary impacts the administration of justice for all time to come.
Source: Barandbench
