Justice Dipak Misra will go down in history as one of the most controversial Chief Justices of India. Having had an eventful tenure, given his style of functioning, he also unprecedentedly inspired a rebellion of four of the country’s senior-most judges—who went public with their grievances regarding how the apex court was administered under Misra. 

These four judges, along with Chief Justice, form a “collegium” that takes a decision on the allotment of the SC’s cases. On January 12 this year, these very four judges—Justices Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi (who will be the new Chief Justice of India), Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph—held a presser at the residence of Justice Chelameswar, to express their outrage over the manner in which the Chief Justice i.e. Misra was functioning, breaching rules and “selectively assigning” cases that have “far-reaching consequences for the nation” to “junior judges,” and that the administration of the Supreme Court was “not in order.” They had raised these issues in private with Justice Misra several times, but all their efforts to persuade him, even on the morning of the presser, for “a specific request,” failed. They were, therefore, forced to “communicate with the nation.”

Justice Misra ’s objectivity was challenged by his own brethren of brother judges. There was also a demand for his resignation from some sections of the law fraternity. Tension prevailed amongst the senior judges—especially after a controversial order was passed in November last year when Justice Misra declared that the Chief Justice (he himself) “is the master of the roster” or has the exclusive power to allot cases to various judges or benches of the apex court. This judgement was passed a day after a two-judge bench headed by Justice Chelameswar ordered that a five-judge bench of senior most judges in the apex court should be set up in order to deal with the matter of an independent probe into a corruption case in which bribes were allegedly taken in the name of settling cases pending before Supreme Court judges.

Prashant Bhushan, a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court, demanded a SIT investigation into this alleged case of the medical college bribery scam, asserting that the Chief Justice Misra overriding Justice  Chelameshwar’s order marked a very sad day in the history of the Supreme Court.  “I have not seen this kind of extraordinary interest being taken by a Chief Justice in a matter which involves him directly, and secondly, because of the kind of unseemly proceedings which took place in the Supreme Court. ..I think the time has come for all concerned citizens, who feel that the judiciary is a very important institution in this country to come together and think of how this institution is to be saved,” Bhushan had said. 

Also, the appointment of judges was mired in controversy. Justice Misra dragging his feet in the elevation of Justice KM Joseph—the same judge who declared President’s Rule in Uttarakhand. Also, in the case pertaining to the mysterious death of Judge Loya in 2014, he was also hearing a case relating to the killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh in an alleged fake shootout. The BJP Chief Amit Shah was one of the accused in the case. 

In a seven-page letter, the four senior-most judges expressed concern without going into the details of the matter to avoid embarrassing the institution because “such departures have already damaged the images of this institution to some extent.”

This unprecedented step by the four senior judges drew a mixed response from various sections of the society. The chief justice was under pressure. Congress even initiated an impeachment proceeding in the Rajya Sabha signed by 71 members of Parliament, stating that “there is no other way to protect the institution except to move on impeachment motion.” 

But with barely a few weeks to go before his retirement, Justice Misra, perhaps in order to reshape his legacy, has been a part of some ground shattering judgements. 

In the social sphere, Section 377 of the IPC, decriminalising homosexuality in India, was scrapped by a bench headed by Justice Misra. More recently, another bench headed by him scrapped Section 497 (Adultery) too. It was deemed as a sexist law that treated wife akin to a private possession and adultery as some sort of a transgression into a private property.  With these two judgements, the apex court, under Justice Misra, substantially reduced the influence of tenets of Victorian morality that had permeated into the Indian criminal justice system. 

His judgement on Aadhar was seen as the fine balancing act. The constitutional bench led by Justice Misra ruled that Aadhar can be considered a “money bill” and is mandatory for the filing of income tax returns and allotment of Permanent Account Number (PAN).  However, private entities, like banks and mobile companies cannot seek Aadhaar data by striking down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act as “unconstitutional”. This means that no company or private entity can seek Aadhaar identification from you. So, Aadhaar authentication for bank accounts or to buy a SIM card is now a thing of the past, and nor will the students of CBSE, NEET, UGC require Aadhaar numbers to appear in the examination. Also, the national security exception under the Aadhaar Act was done away with by the apex court to ensure greater privacy of an individual restricting the government accessibility to Aadhaar data.

In the realm of faith, he presided over two important cases towards the end of his tenure. His judgement in the Sabarimala Temple case should also nee taken into account; the constitutional bench he was heading ruled that women in the 10-50 age group should be allowed into the temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa in Kerala. Misra was of the view that banning the entry of women into the shrine is gender discrimination and the practice violates the fundamental rights of Hindu women. Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone woman judge in the bench, in her dissenting judgment stated: “What constitutes essential practices of religion is to be decided by worshippers, and it is not for the judiciary to adjudicate.”  

In reference to the Ayodhya case, the apex court last week declined to refer to a five-judge Constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement that a mosque, which had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute, was not integral to Islam. Justice Misra was of the view that the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence and the previous verdict has no relevance on it.

It’s a grand finale to a controversial tenure. Justice Misra has secured his place in the history for both—good and bad reasons. However, time is the only litmus test that will decide the fate of everyone’s legacies—including Justice Dipak Misra.