In a surprising stance, Supreme Court Judge Justice Abhay Oka emphasized that traditional rituals like puja and archana should not take place at judicial premises. He made these remarks during a Bhoomi Poojan ceremony for a new district court building in Pune. He said, “We have to stop doing pooja Archana or lighting lamp kind of rituals during any events related to Judiciary. Instead, we should keep the Preamble of the Constitution and bow down to it to start any event. We need to start this new thing to respect our constitution and its value”.
Justice Oka urged the legal community to prioritize core Constitutional principles, suggesting a shift towards bowing down to the Preamble of the Constitution instead of religious rituals.
Justice Oka, accompanied by Supreme Court Justices BR Gavai and Prasanna B Varale, as well as Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay, shared his perspective on introducing a new tradition that reflects respect for the constitution’s values. Justice Gavai supported the idea, proposing symbolic acts like marking the foundation with a spade and inaugurating events by watering plants to convey a positive environmental message.
The duplicity of Justice Oka comes to the fore when we read about how he ordered that bail be granted to an Islamist accused of forceful conversion and blackmail of a Hindu woman after the High Court denied the bail.
Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka was born on May 25th, 1960. He completed his B.Sc and LLM from the University of Bombay. Justice Oka enrolled as an Advocate in Bombay in 1983. He started his career at the Thane District Court in his father’s chambers. He then joined the chambers of the then Senior Counsel for the Union of India V.P. Tipnis in 1985. In 2003, he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court. He was made a permanent Judge in 2005 and remained in the Bombay High Court for more than 13 years. He was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court in 2019, before being elevated as a Supreme Court judge on August 17th, 2021.
This comes just days after former Supreme Court Justice Kurien Joseph spoke at an event organised by The Wire on the topic, “Supreme Court administration and management- Issues and concerns”, where he 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.”
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.
The comments made by Justice Oka beg the question of whether a sitting Supreme Court judge can delve into matters of faith beyond the legal realm. Critics argue that dissuading people from practicing rituals and forms of worship, in the name of the Constitution, raises concerns about the fairness of an institution to endorse such a cause. The Constitution is viewed as a living document, and Justice Oka’s assertion that it does not provide hope for those without religious beliefs is deemed problematic. The focus is on whether an SC judge should prioritize justice within legal parameters rather than engaging in prescriptive sermons. Comparisons are drawn to past instances where judges faced criticism for seemingly unrelated activities, raising questions about potential misdirected wrath, particularly when the critique targets a Hindu ritual.
