Over the past few days, the words of a former Supreme Court judge, K Joseph, have been making the rounds. Speaking at an event organised by The Wire on the topic, “Supreme Court administration and management- Issues and concerns”, K Joseph said, “In all other high courts and National institutions, the motto is Satyameva Jayate. But our Supreme Court has a different motto. Our Supreme Court motto is यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः. I don’t know why that different motto is adopted by the Supreme Court of India. Because to me, for the Supreme Court, the guardian of the Constitution, truth is the Constitution. Dharma is not always the truth; Dharma is the discharge of your duty in terms of the need of the hour, that is Dharma as popularly understood.”

“यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः” means Where there is Dharma, there is victory. 

Former Justice Joseph noted that all High Courts across the country have adopted the motto “Satyameva Jayate,” but the Supreme Court has retained the Dharmic notion instead. Former Justice Joseph urged the Chief Justice of India, the honourable associates, and the public to contemplate why the Supreme Court should adopt a motto distinct from the national motto, as it significantly influences its approach on this matter.

It is noteworthy that former Justice Joseph had previously compared the Catholic Church with the Preamble of the Constitution. During a seminar in 2018, he stated, “The Catholic Church is one that has always assimilated in itself all the traditions and cultures brought in by the believers from all over the world. This is similar to the preamble of our Constitution, which starts with the word ‘We’.” Justice Joseph emphasised that the Pope serves as the unifying figure holding the Church as a single entity.

One might wonder whether former Justice Joseph is overlooking the nuanced role of the judiciary in a democracy. The Supreme Court’s motto is a testament to its unique role in interpreting the law and delivering justice, encompassing the essence of judicial deliberation, including moral and ethical considerations.

It is noteworthy that Justice Joseph disregards the Supreme Court’s duty to check the powers of the executive and legislature, ensuring alignment with the Constitution. The motto symbolises the separation of powers and underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the Constitution’s principles of truth, justice, and righteousness.

“यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः” is a shloka from the Mahabharata, much like the installation of the Sengol in the new Parliament building, is deeply rooted in Hindu values, particularly justice and righteous duty, rather than religious connotations. 

Justice Joseph’s suggestion to change this comes across as an attempt to ignore Bharat’s history and culture.

Former Justice Bhanumathi & her Christian belief

Former Justice R Bhanumathi, although a Hindu, believed in the gospel of Jesus. In her farewell speech, she said, “Though I am a Hindu, I believe in the gospel of Jesus. By the Grace of Jesus, I got educated and came up in life. I got into the Tamil Nadu higher judicial services at the age of 33 in 1988 and served the institution for over 3 decades.”

She further added, “During my judicial service, there were mountains of obstacles for no reason. Yet no human hand could prevent what Jesus Christ has ordained for me in my life.” 

Interestingly, while serving as a Judge on the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Justice Bhanumathi banned the Tamil sport Jallikattu. She had questioned how such races could be conducted against the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. In a 2017 interview with The Hindu, attorney L Shaji Chellan recounted the pivotal day, March 29, 2006, when Justice R. Banumathi, then a single judge at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, imposed a ban on jallikattu. The lawyer claimed that she independently broadened the scope of the case, leading to the prohibition of not only jallikattu but also the rekla race and oxen race. Justice Banumathi would later ascend to the position of a Supreme Court judge.

However, upon her appointment as a Supreme Court judge in 2012, she chose to recuse herself from presiding over the same case when it was listed in the Supreme Court.

Connecting her faith in the gospel, one wonders if her faith had anything to do with her ruling in favour of a ban on Jallikattu, the rekla race, and the oxen race back in 2006. Did the then Supreme Court judge not find truth in the case presented before her? 

The shloka “यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः” fit perfectly with the Supreme Court considering it to do the Dharma of a conscience keeper of the Constitution. These statements made by such rabidly evangelist-leaning judges make one question the nature of their judgements over the years – was it painted in the colours of the Gospel and the Catholic Church, or were they true to their conscience?