Multiple NDPS Cases Without Conviction Cannot Justify Indefinite Pre-Trial Custody: Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Bail in Heroin Case Departmental Findings Based On Witnesses Discredited By Criminal Court Constitute 'No Evidence': Orissa High Court Upheld Constable's Reinstatement When Pension Rules Are Capable of More Than One Interpretation, Courts Must Lean in Favour of the Employee: MP High Court Wife Left Voluntarily — But Minor Children Cannot Be Taken Away: Madras High Court Intervenes in Habeas Corpus for Two Toddlers Where Consideration Does Not Pass in Terms of the Sale Deed, the Sale Deed Is Null and Void, a Nullity and Dead Letter in the Eyes of Law: Jharkhand High Court National Award-Winning Director's Script Was Registered Two Years Before Complainant Even Wrote His — Supreme Court Quashes Copyright Infringement Case Against 'Kahaani-2' Director IBC Clean Slate Does Not Wipe Out Right of Set-Off as Defence: Supreme Court Draws Critical Distinction Between Counterclaim and Defensive Plea GST Assessment Challenged on Natural Justice Grounds Tagged to Criminal Writ in Supreme Court Railway Cannot Escape Compensation by Crying 'Trespass' Without Eyewitness: Bombay High Court Reverses Tribunal, Awards Rs. 4 Lakh to Widow of Rolex Employee Master Plan Cannot Be Held Hostage to Subsequent Vegetation Growth — Supreme Court Settles Deemed Forest vs. Statutory Planning Conflict Contempt | Sold Property Despite Court's Restraint Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sentences One Month's Imprisonment Tractor-Run-Over Death Was An Accident, Not Murder: Allahabad High Court Acquits Three Accused Fast-Tracking Cannot Bury Justice: Supreme Court Sets Aside 21-Year-Delayed Appeal Decided Without Informing Convict Panchayat Act's Demolition Powers Cease Once Plot Falls Under Development Authority's Planning Area: Calcutta High Court Actual Date Of Woman Director's Appointment A Triable Issue; Prosecution Can't Be Quashed Merely On Claims Of Compliance: Calcutta High Court A Website Cannot Whisper and Then Punish: Delhi High Court Reins in DSSSB Over E-Dossier Rejections Mutual Consent Alone Ends the Marriage: Gujarat High Court Affirms Mubarat Divorce Without Formalities State Cannot Hide Behind "Oral Consent" or Delay When It Builds Roads Through Citizens' Land Without Due Process: Himachal Pradesh HC Show Cause Notice Alone Cannot Cut a Retired Engineer's Pension: Jharkhand High Court Bovine Smuggling Is a Law and Order Problem, Not a Public Order Threat: J&K High Court Quashes PSA Detention Article 22(2) Constitution | Production Beyond 24 Hours Not Fatal If Delay Explained And Travel Time Excluded: Karnataka High Court Article 227 Is Not an Appellate Power: High Court Refuses to Reassess Tribunal Findings on Pension Claim: Kerala High Court High Court Cannot Call A Complaint "False And Malicious" Without First Finding It Discloses No Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court When Jurisdiction Fails, Remand Cannot Cure It: Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Sending MSME Award Dispute Back to Functus Officio Facilitation Council Selling Inferior Pipes as 'Jain' or 'Jindal Gold' Brand Is Not Just a Civil Wrong — It's Cheating: MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Went to Collect Chit Fund Money, Got Arrested in Prostitution Raid: Telangana High Court Grants Bail to Woman Accused of Being Sub-Organiser Axe Blow During Sudden Quarrel Falls Under Exception 4 To Section 300 IPC, Not Murder: Orissa High Court Modifies Conviction To Culpable Homicide

SCBA Expresses Strong Objection to Unilateral Changes in Supreme Court Emblem and Lady Justice Statue

24 October 2024 3:02 PM

By: sayum


"We Are Equal Stakeholders in the Administration of Justice": SCBA Criticizes Lack of Consultation on Changes to Supreme Court Emblem and Statue. On October 22, 2024, the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) passed a resolution expressing its strong objection to recent "unilateral" modifications made to the Supreme Court’s emblem and the iconic statue of Lady Justice, criticizing the lack of consultation with the Bar. The SCBA stated that despite being an integral part of the justice system, they were not consulted regarding these changes, nor were they informed about the rationale behind them.

The changes, which were first unveiled on September 1, 2024, as part of the 75th-anniversary celebrations of the Supreme Court of India, include a redesign of the Supreme Court’s emblem and flag. Moreover, it has recently come to light that the traditional statue of Lady Justice, historically adorned with a blindfold to symbolize impartiality, has also been altered. The new version of the statue no longer features a blindfold and instead holds a book representing the Constitution of India in place of the sword traditionally associated with justice.

"Unilateral Changes Made Without Our Knowledge": SCBA Criticizes Lack of Transparency

The SCBA’s resolution emphasized that these modifications were made without consulting the Bar, despite their role as equal stakeholders in the administration of justice.

"We are equal stakeholders in the administration of justice, but these changes were never brought to our attention. We are completely unaware of the rationale behind these alterations," the SCBA resolution read.

The association voiced its displeasure over the process and raised concerns about the transparency behind such significant changes to symbols associated with the judiciary. The SCBA expressed its belief that changes to symbols representing the judiciary should involve consultation with all stakeholders, including the legal fraternity.

Lady Justice Statue Altered: From Blindfolded Impartiality to Constitutional Representation

One of the primary concerns raised by the SCBA is the alteration to the iconic statue of Lady Justice, traditionally displayed in the Judges' library. Historically, the statue of Lady Justice, also known as Justitia, has worn a blindfold to symbolize impartial justice. However, the new statue no longer features a blindfold and instead holds a book representing the Constitution of India, symbolizing the primacy of constitutional law. The sword, which traditionally represents the enforcement of justice, has also been removed.

The SCBA’s objection to this alteration stems from the symbolic significance of the blindfold, which has long represented the ideal that justice should be delivered without bias or prejudice. The removal of this element, they argue, alters the foundational message that the statue is meant to convey.

SCBA's Opposition to Proposed Museum in Judges' Library

In addition to the emblem and statue concerns, the SCBA reiterated its objection to the proposed transformation of the former Judges' library into a museum. The association had previously requested that the space be converted into a library and café-lounge for Bar members, arguing that the existing cafeteria is inadequate to meet the needs of the legal community.

The SCBA expressed its discontent with the ongoing work to establish the museum despite their earlier objections.

"We are concerned that despite our objection raised against the proposed Museum in the erstwhile Judges library, work has started for the museum," the SCBA’s resolution stated.

The Bar association further emphasized the need for a dedicated space for its members, stating,

"Whereas we had demanded a Library, Cafe cum Lounge for the members of the Bar as the present cafeteria is inadequate to cater to the needs of the members of the Bar, we unanimously oppose the proposed museum in the High Security Zone and reiterate our demand for a Library and a Cafe cum Lounge for our members."

This resolution was endorsed by all 21 members of the SCBA's Executive Committee.

Upcoming Inauguration of Advocates' Library and Welfare Centre

The SCBA’s concerns come on the same day that Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud is scheduled to inaugurate the Advocates' Library and Advocates' Welfare Centre located on the eighth floor of the Supreme Court's D-block Administrative Building Complex. The new library and welfare center are part of efforts to expand facilities for the legal fraternity, but the SCBA has raised concerns that these developments do not fully address their needs.

The SCBA’s resolution highlights ongoing tensions between the Bar and the judiciary regarding decisions affecting shared judicial spaces and symbols. The association’s insistence on consultation and collaboration reflects a broader desire for greater inclusion in decisions that impact the legal community. As the judiciary continues to make symbolic and structural changes, the SCBA is calling for a more transparent and participatory process that includes the voices of legal practitioners.

Date of Resolution: October 22, 2024

Latest Legal News