From Blindfolded to Blinded: The Risk of Sight in India's Justice System
"The Eyes, Chico. They never lie." This famous line delivered by Al Pacino in Scarface resonates with the notion that eyes, the windows to the soul, reveal truth. Recently, the Supreme Court of India decided to remove the blindfold from the statue of Lady Justice, declaring that the law is no longer blind. While this symbolic move has attracted attention, it carries deeper implications that deserve scrutiny. Let's break down what’s fundamentally wrong with this change and the underlying declaration.
Firstly, this isn’t just about removing a blindfold; it’s a complete shift in the deity representing justice in our country. Traditionally, Lady Justice as we know her was modeled after Dike, the Greek goddess of justice, who wore a blindfold while holding a sword and scales. The blindfold didn’t signify blindness to reality but rather impartiality, showing that justice is objective and should not be swayed by appearances. The sword, often a point of contention for critics, is held lower than the scales, symbolizing that punishment comes only after a fair and impartial weighing of the evidence.
The recent shift from Dike to Astraea, the Roman goddess of justice, marks a more profound change. In mythology, Astraea lived among humans during the Golden Age but left when the Iron Age came, abandoning humanity as morality declined. This shift in symbolism reflects a troubling trend—a move toward a justice system that could, like Astraea, abandon impartiality in times of moral degradation. Is this not eerily reminiscent of the behavior of opportunists who leave when times get tough, only returning when circumstances suit them?
So what did the blindfold really represent? The answer lies in the Constitution of India, particularly in the IIIrd Schedule, which outlines the oath that judges take. It states: “…I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will…” This oath is a commitment to impartiality, to the idea that justice must be served without being influenced by personal biases or emotional responses. The blindfold was a symbol of that very principle: that justice is guided by evidence, not by what is seen, felt, or perceived.
Eyes are, after all, the most expressive part of the human body. Some interpretations suggest that the blindfold also protects Lady Justice from the embarrassment of not being able to deliver perfect justice, especially when the moral or ethical landscape is murky. It shields her from the biases of the external world, ensuring she isn't swayed by emotion or appearances. Without the blindfold, Lady Justice may be at risk of succumbing to human tendencies—like Astraea, who abandoned the world when the Iron Age arrived.
The claim that removing the blindfold means that the law is "no longer blind" is, in itself, a flawed assertion. If the law gains sight only after the removal of the blindfold, what does that imply about the justice that has been served in the past? Should all past judgments be reconsidered because they were delivered when the law was "blind"? Of course not. The blindfold was never about blindness to truth but about being uninfluenced by superficial aspects, focusing instead on the facts and evidence presented in the courtroom.
The blindfold represents the inner voice of Lady Justice—one that listens to reason and logic, free from the chaos of external biases. Its removal signifies the end of an era, one that placed intelligence and wisdom at the core of justice, valuing the heart’s insight over the eyes’ perception.
In essence, the blindfold allowed Lady Justice to rise above human limitations. By removing it, we risk diluting the very principles that ensured justice was fair and impartial. It’s a symbolic decision that could lead us down a path where justice is no longer blind but perhaps more vulnerable to manipulation, bias, and the same human frailties it once rose above.