The pronouncements of a Meghalaya high court judge came like a bolt from the blue. Obiter dicta can never be viewed as a judicial order. Such comments don’t refer to crucial facts and the law, but even so, for a judge to express an opinion that goes against the Constitution brings up the question whether he should remain as a member of the judiciary. Had Justice S.R. Sen held this as a personal opinion, he would have been entitled to it, provided he kept it to himself rather than airing it in court. But to say India should have been a Hindu country and quote history to justify such an argument while dealing with a matter of denial of a domiciliary certificate to a petitioner far exceeds his judicial limits.
There was little need for the judge to question the basic structure of the nation’s governance system. Judges are expected to stick to the Constitution, that defines India as a secular state.
This incidence of pointless diversion at a time when a huge pendency of cases, both in the Supreme Court and high courts, seems most eccentric. The Supreme Court has stayed the order, but it may consider further action to nip such excesses among the judiciary. It is true that judges are rarely divested of their duties, but it is not unheard of in Indian judicial history. Rarely too is a judge impeached, which anyway is the right and responsibility of Parliament. The need for basic discipline in the judiciary can’t be stressed too much — even in a stray incident of excess.
