Justice Kurian Joseph explains why lady justice statue has blindfold

In light of the removal of the blindfold from the Lady Justice statue at the Supreme Court, former Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph recently elaborated on the significance of the blindfold.

Justice Joseph explained that the purpose behind the blindfold is to denote that irrespective of the person arguing before a court, justice dispensation is evenhanded.

In that backdrop, he emphasized the importance of giving preference to institutional practices over an individuals' choice on how such symbols and practices should be.

"It does not matter who appears before you. It does not matter who is the person before you. Therefore, that was the reason why the deity of justice had the blindfold....Every one of us is a duty holder. So, you must have institutional systems and practices in place rather than individuals' own choices on what the systems and practices should be," he said.

On replacement of the sword with a copy of the Indian Constitution, he welcomed the decision but emphasized that the Constitution should be shown and seen as a shield as well as a sword.

"I would rather suggest the Constitution is a good choice. But the Constitution should be shown and seen as the shield and the sword… a shield for the protection of rights and a sword against those who violate those rights," he said.

The former Supreme Court judge was addressing a gathering while accepting the Prof. Dr. NR Madhava Menon Memorial Award "Tribute of Honour" presented by the Bar Council of Kerala.

Justice Joseph also highlighted that restoring the credibility of judicial institutions is one of the foremost challenges today.

He acknowledged that perceptions of diminished credibility have persisted for years but stated that the collegium system has failed to fully safeguard the independence of judiciary.

He admitted that despite his initial hope when writing the judgment striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) in 2015, the collegium system did not meet the expectations.

"I honestly feel that the collegium system has failed to protect the independence of the judiciary. So there needs to be an institutional solution for that," he said.

He revealed that during arguments on the NJAC, Senior Advocates KK Venugopal and the late Fali Nariman had suggested modifying the law rather than rejecting it outright.

He proposed a restructured judicial appointments commission consisting of the Chief Justice, the two senior-most judges, the Law Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition to ensure transparency in the selection and appointment of judges.

"That way, a system could be experimented with, which I hope, we hope, might protect the independence of the judiciary," he added.

Justice Joseph further remarked on the concept of "master of the roster," suggesting that it should be an institutional practice governed by senior judges rather than a single individual's discretion.

"If you can think of a collegium for appointments, you can think of a master of roster system of one, two or three senior-most judges. That would rather solve all the issues," he said.

Furthermore, addressing the judiciary's workload, Justice Joseph batted for synchronized calendars for the High Courts and district judiciaries to mitigate stress.

He also highlighted the significant contributions of lower court judges who handle immense caseloads and face considerable work pressure.

"I am quite worried about the work stress. I was hailed for having written a thousand judgments in the Supreme Court, but there are unsung heroes sitting here who might have written 10,000 judgments, but nobody counts their number. The number that is counted is only of High Court judges and Supreme Court judges. They work, according to me, double the time and go through double the stress. That we need to address, because if you say there is a judicial family, we need to address it," he stated.