Reasoning: Can symbols be synonymous with reality?

Ramesh Ojha

This is the age of eloquence and symbols, so if you can't or don't want to work, be eloquent. Talk big, fool people, make promises. Apart from this symbols can also be used to serve people. You know how eloquent retired Chief Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud was, talking big about constitutional ideals. He also used the symbol. In the library of the Supreme Court, there is an idol of the goddess of justice, which is different from the popular idol. Dhananjaya Chandrachud has removed the blindfold of the goddess of justice and is holding a copy of the constitution instead of a sword. Only the scales are forever. The scales symbolize the weighing of justice. Neither more nor less. A popular statue of the goddess of justice was blindfolded so that she could not see whether there was a king or a rank in front of her while judging. Rich or poor. A religious leader or an atheist. The goddess of justice maintains voluntary blindness as to who is the plaintiff or the defendant. A sword in hand indicates that the Judiciary is strong and not weak. His arms are long and no one can escape him. Retired Justice Chandrachud has removed his blindfold from the statue he placed in the Supreme Court before retiring and is holding a copy of the Constitution instead of a sword. Apart from this, the goddess is crowned, which is a symbol of supremacy. Now the first question arises, about the changes made in symbols by Justice Chandrachud and his fellow judges and its implications and the second question arises whether symbols can be synonymous with facts? There have been demands for decades that a full-size statue of Justice Hansraj Khanna be installed in the Supreme Court premises. Who was this Justice H. R. Khanna and why his statue is insisted on? He Dr. Ambedkar, b. N Rao, KH. M. A great jurist like Sirvai was not a scholar, he did not do any comparative study of constitutions of world countries like Ivor Jennings or Greenville Austin. Subba Rao K P. B. Neither Gajendragadkar nor Krishna Iyer had mastered the English language and he was not a good speaker like Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud. Despite this, there are demands to place his statue and that too in the premises of the Supreme Court. Why? Because he was the goddess of justice (old or new) who symbolically taught the virtues and justices expected of the constitution. He was not a scholar, he was honest. He was not talkative, he was cheeky. Not loyal to time and circumstances, loyal to the Constitution of India, the rule of law and the citizen of India. Not ambitious, but understood the importance of the seat of justice. When the good judges sat in the water during the emergency, they made a mockery of the constitution. Went against the government and paid the price. He was superceded and resigned for the sake of self-respect. At that time there was no statue of the Goddess of Justice in the Supreme Court and the Constitution was not in the hands of the Goddess. So works speak, not great words and symbols. I am sure that if not today, then tomorrow, Justice H. R. Khanna's statue will be installed in the Supreme Court. Now about the changes made in the new idol and its implications. Goddess of Justice has been crowned to achieve supremacy of judiciary. Did we and the framers of the constitution have in mind the supremacy of the judiciary or the independence and autonomy of the judiciary? In a democracy each wing is equally important and none is supreme. Second, does true power lie in supremacy or in freedom? Rulers are supreme but slaves to the rich. Also there is a difference between power and authority. The framers of the Constitution expected an independent judiciary, not a supreme one. Due to such misinterpretations, we feel that when the government at the center is weak, the judiciary sits on the chest and when the government is strong, it sinks. Similarity will be seen in the years of Indira Gandhi and the present years. To avoid such calamities, the country needs an independent judiciary, not a supreme one. While unveiling the statue, Justice Chandrachud said that the eyes of the judiciary are and should be open. He is right, judges do not descend from heaven and sit in courtrooms. They also live within the society. The print reads, t. V. Watch channels and have an eye on social media. They know what is going on in the country and society. This applies to journalists, to officials, to ordinary citizens and to anyone else. What should everyone be aware of when it comes to making a decision and that too when it comes to making a decision of wider than personal interest or when it comes time to form or give an opinion? My answer is three: conscience, constitution and individual or collective interest of the citizen. One should keep one's eyes open to understand what is happening and one should keep one's eyes closed on who will be hurt and who will be offended or pleased by my decision or opinion. Justice H. R. Khanna's eyes were both open and closed. ADM Jabalpur case H. R. The remaining four judges (Justice A. N. Ray, Justice H. M. Baig, Justice P. N. Bhagwati and Justice V. Y. Chandrachud) along with Khanna had only an open eye and ruled in favor of the government and against the Constitution and the citizen. was given And last thing. Stronger sword or constitution? Neither if the operator lacks skill and guts. Gandhiji used to say that liver is in care, not in arms. So big words and symbols cannot take the place of concrete work. }