State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication

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