The Book of Revelation, the last book of the New Testament, speaks about a scroll being held in God’s right hand. This scroll is fastened by seven seals. The Lamb of God, from the tribe of Judah, opens the first four of the seven seals and four beings riding on white, red, black, and pale horses come rushing out. On the first seal broken, the coming of the apocalypse is revealed.

On the afternoon of January 12, the four seals of the constitutional scroll were broken. The seal of silence was broken. The four judges of the Supreme Court of India brought out their differences with CJI Dipak Misra. Judges, by the nature of their office, do not go to the press.

Judges do not try to defend themselves nor do they accuse any one in public. This seal was broken on that day. A year ago, when a judge of a constitutional court held a press conference, it was declared sacrilege. He broke no seals but was sealed from society for six months.

First of the four horsemen released a letter written by them to the primus inter pares. Judges are not covered under the Right to Information Act. Judicial omerta is as sacred as the original. Yet, voluntarily, a letter written by the four to the top judge was revealed to the press and through them to the public.

The second seal which was broken that day was all is peaceful inside the sanctum sanctorum. The letter spoke about quick and rapid departures from conventions and how it has led to unpleasant and undesirable consequences affecting the integrity of the institution. So much so that the letter stated that benches “of their preferences” are being allotted in matters affecting the nation and the institution.

It implies, first, that the power of allotting benches has been surrendered to someone else. Secondly, it also implies that in important cases, litigants have on the bench of the Supreme Court persons of their choice. It not only tends to question the exercise of power by the CJI but also questions brother and sister judges. If such a statement had been made by any other person, the sword of contempt would have swiftly visited her.

If the four horsemen, who have sounded apocalypse to the present constitutional dispensation, have information that will affect the institution, aren’t they duty bound to reveal it? Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as the old adage goes.

Thirdly, there is a contradiction in the letter. Its golden thread is that the CJI is first amongst equals and all judges are equal. Yet, it speaks about seniority in allocation of cases. If every judge is equal to the other, then where is the question of seniority? The verdict is that of the Supreme Court, not of individual judges. Further, Supreme Court is not comprised by judicial greenhorns but by seasoned judges of constitutional courts, who have put in a decade or more in the judiciary.

The letter speaks about how the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) approved by the collegium had been sent to the government but is yet to be approved by the latter and since it has not responded, it means acceptance. But there cannot be an acceptance by silence in constitutional matters, especially when the province of deciding it lies with the executive.

Can the CJI be made answerable for lapses of the government? Yes, a writ petition was filed seeking for finalising the MoP. It was dismissed holding that it can be dealt with on the administrative side.

It must be recalled that Mukul Rohatgi, then attorney general, refused to surrender the power of drafting the MoP to the judiciary. He was right when he said the preparation of it falls within executive domain. Accepting that position, the constitutional bench gave guidelines for drafting the same and left it to the executive to finalise it. Three of the four horsemen were party to this judgment.

The last seal that has been broken is the unity of the institution. The bulwark against executive encroachment of citizen’s rights is the judiciary. If the institution is not united, cracks will appear and the power to protect will leak through these cracks.

Several solutions exist. An agenda could have been brought forth in a full court meeting or even in the next conference of chief justices or maybe, even by a confidential letter to the President. If the President felt there was substance, he could have made a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution.

This could have found a solution of the issue, for all presidential references under Article 143 have to be heard by a constitutional bench ñ the primary demand of the four.

Cutting ranks and going forward does not convey the right message because if the incumbent is to exit, the beneficiaries would be at least two of the four. Unity amongst the judges who constitute the constitutional court is as essential as the independence of the judiciary itself. The institution is more important than transitory administrators.

It is not for all to open the seals of the constitutional scroll. When opened in a forcible manner, the scroll itself may tear. It requires the touch and finesse of the Lamb of God.