Unveiling the Lady Justice or Veiling the Constitution?

Recently we showed a sudden change in the system of our judiciary by changing the statue of Lady Justice, replacing the sword with a book (which could be interpreted as a Constitution), removing the blindfold from the lady, and the gown was replaced with a saree or traditional jewelry to add an Indian touch, but the scales stayed the same. 

So, what does this all show, and what does the judiciary hope to prove by editing these alterations into the Lady Justice? 

• Does it wish to alter Lady Justice's image? 
• Does it wish to eliminate the colonial mark? 
• Or does CJI D.Y. Chandrachud want to leave his stamp on the Indian judiciary? So the country remembers him. 

Therefore, let's start by discussing the Lady Justice's background and the blindfold issue before responding to any of these queries. 

The Origin of Lady Justice and the Blindfold Issue

Thus, the first recorded occurrence of this occurred in Greek mythology about 700 BCE, when Hesiod states that Thenis, the Goddess of justice, wisdom, and wise counsel, was one of the 12 Titans (Lords) born to Gaea and Uranus. It wasn't blindfolded here. Later, the worship of Justice was established by the first Roman Emperor Augustus (27 BCE–14 CE), who created a goddess called Justitia. Like Thenis, Justitia was not blindfolded. 

The question now is: How did it end up blindfolded? 

During contemporary times, when laws are created or codified, lawyers have seen instances in which victims or criminals used loopholes or faults in these rules to escape prosecution. Therefore, in 1494, a lawyer by the name of Sebastian Brant made a woodcut of this blindfolded justice titled "The Fool Blindfolding Justice" to give it a sarcastic meaning. So, it's a parody in which a clever man blindfolds justice through his techniques or clarity, preventing it from being delivered effectively. 

Therefore, it was blindfolded. However, by the early 17th century, these blindfolds had come to symbolize impartiality, fairness, and equality before the law. Thus, in this case, the Lady Justice was blindfolded, and the significance of this event was entirely altered based on human perception. It all came down to how you viewed the statue because you could see the positive aspects of the negative. 

Why did the Supreme Court make this change? 

Does it want to remove the colonial traces from India by adopting the new symbol and flag, as well as the most recent changes to Lady Justice? 

In this case, the sword has been changed by the book which depicts the Constitution. In this instance, the book that represents the constitution has replaced the sword. The snake beneath the sword represents a criminal who is punished, and the sword itself symbolizes the authoritative authority of justice that it should be upheld and punished for its actions. These items have now been eliminated, and in their place is a book of the constitution that demonstrates how justice will be administered by the law. 

Since the sword is used as an authoritative means of punishing criminals rather than in a punitive or violative manner, is it relevant to remove it in this case? This is especially important in the current era, when recent crimes like rapes, murders, kidnappings, etc., call for authoritative punishment for wrongdoings, and the sword is always below the height of scales that indicate that punishment will be meted out after all witnesses have been judged. The scales were still present here, indicating that witnesses are weighed rather than counted. The Indian Saree also took the role of the traditional gown, which was being Indianized. 

What was the point of making these little adjustments, and is the judiciary seeking to shed its colonial heritage? A variety of Indian historical characters and symbols, such as the figures of Shiva, Yama, Manu, Goddess Durga, Saraswati, and others, are used by the judiciary if it wishes to become Indianized. Why just these little changes? 

The judicial system gains nothing from these modifications. Because a judge or lawyer does not consider the lady justice before rendering a ruling or presenting his reasons. In the judiciary, it simply had a decorative or symbolic meaning. In order to provide any value, the court should stop wasting time on these problems and instead concentrate on other areas, such as case backlog reduction, digital transformation, accountability, access to justice, and many more. 

CJI D.Y. Chandrachud's Motives

Why CJI D.Y. Chandrachud made these amendments just before retiring?

Could it be to leave a personal legacy?

Many people, including the SC Bar Association, strongly disagreed with this ruling, claiming that the insignia, flag, and lady justice of the Supreme Court had not been discussed. Unaware of it, they unanimously opposed it in their resolution. They assert that both the bench and the bar have equal rights to express their opinions and support reforms to the legal system and that they are equally involved stakeholders in it.  

However, our Supreme Court and High Court currently revolve around the Chief Justice, which is problematic. If you hold a position of honor or leadership within the legal system, you must operate democratically and not rule like a king, thus preserving democracy rather than veiling it.

Your Thoughts?

What did you think of these modifications made by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud? Why did he do that, what was it displaying, and what did it mean? Leave a comment with your thoughts.