Chapt

er-1
ThePr
omiseandPer ilofTranscendent
alJur
ispr
udence:
Justi
ceKrishnaIyer’
sCombatwi tht
he
Product
ionofRi ghtl
essnessinI
ndi
a

Upendr
aBaxi


Thepol
‘ i
ticalist hehor izonoft her ev olut
ion,nott erminatedbut
cont inued,al way sr eopenedbyt hel oveoft ime…Thedy nami c,creative,
cont inual ,andpr ocedur alconst i
tut i
onofst r
engt hi st hepol it
ical.This
def i
ni t
ioni snei t
herempt ynorneut r al
;itissubj ectedt othedet erminati
ons
ofsubj ect i
vit
yand t endency ,t hati sf igures i n whi ch mul ti
tude and
strengt h cr i
sscr oss as f i
gures of pr oduct ive cooper ation.But t he
expr essi onoft hemul t
it
udeandcont i
nualcr eat i
onofanewwor ldofl i
fe
remai ni tsf undament alelement .Tot aket hisel ementawayf rom t he
politicalmeanst ot akeev er yt
hi ngawayf rom i t;i
tmeanst or educei tto
pur eadmi nistr
ativ eanddi plomat i
cmedi ation,t obur eaucraticandpol ice
activity—t hati sexact lytot hatagai nstwhi cht heconst i
tuentpower ,ast he
originoft hepol itical,continuallyst rugglesinor dertoemer geasst r
ength.
Indeed,al lthoseact i
v i
ti
est hatwoul dliket opr esentt hemel sevesast he
natur eoft hepol it
icaldonotbel ongt ot hepol it
icalbut ,rather,tot he
routineofunchangedr epet it
ion.Theyar et heef fectsofdeadl abour ,
perv ersei nversionsofconst i
tuentpower ,andcannotbeusedt odef ine
thepol i
tical’.

I
nsur
genci
es

Thus,endsmor eorless,t
hemagni f
icentt
reatiseofAnt onioNegrienti
tl
ed
I
nsurgencies,
(1999;334. 5.
)Itprovi
desindeedacr eativeguidet ounderstandi
ng
t
heHer culeanjuri
sprudent i
all
aboursofJust i
ceKrishnaIyer.Heemer gedont he
l
andscapeofI ndianjurispr
udencewithanel ementalseismicforce.Hi
sdeci si
ons
r
emai nactsofser i
alinsurgencyfr
om theHighBench.

Krishna( ashef ondl yallowsmet ocallhi

m andIher erefertohi m byhi s
fi
rstname)maynothav ereadNegr ibutenactseachoneoft hesev eralt
hemes
exempl ifi
edi ntheabov equot ation.Heseekst obringthev oiceoft hemul tit
it
ude
tot het askofar ti
culationofj udi cialpowerandpr owess.Hecombat sceasel essl y
the ‘ perv ersion’ of const it
uent power and i nveighs agai nst f orms of
bureaucr at i
zat i
onofhumanr i
ght s.Hisjudgment s,andv oluminousext ra-
judicial
writings,openupt ot hei neffabl e‘ l
oveoft ime’i nwhi cht her enewaloft he
politicalisal way sat aski nvit
inganact ivi
stjudget or e-
enunci at
et he‘ dy
nami c,
creat ive,cont inual,andpr ocedur alconst i
tuti
onofst rength.’Buttherei smor et o
Krishna.Hi si ndefatigablej udici alandj uridi
calpraxesaut horizehi mt oalsot o
reconst r
uctt hatwhi chhedev ast ates.Inthisli
eshi struegeni us,whi chmanya
 1
j
udi
cial
biogr
aphy andf
est
schr
if
ten2maydescr
ibebutnev
erf
ull
yexhaust
.

Thisessaydoesnotexami nei nanydet ailscoresofhi sjudici

alopinions;I
3
havecont r
ibutedof t
en t ot hetraditionofongoi ngexpl orat
ionofhi sjudgment s,
whichhaswav eredbet weencr i
tiqueandappl ause4.NordoIexpl orethequest i
on
ofKr i
shna’simpactont heI ndi
anadj udicat
oryandhumanr ightscultures,which
needf urt
herempi ri
calexpl orat
ion.Ev enwhent hereisnodoubtt hatKrishnaled
ther enai
ssanceoft heIndi anj udicialprocessand power ,hedi d so int he
l
umi nouscompani onshipofJust icesP. N.Bhagwat i,O.Chi nnappaReddy ,D.A.
,5,eachofwhom st 6
Desai oodi ncr it
icalrel
ationshipwit hhim. Wedonotqui t
e
1
Iinv it
ei npar ticulary ourat tent iont oJust i
ceHar iSwar oop’ sador i
ngj udi cialbi ogr aphy( 1981. )
2
Raj eev Dhav an,Sal manKhur shi d,andR.Sudar shan( 1985)andt hemor er ecentf estschr i
ft
VenkatI y er( 2001. )
3
See Upendr a Baxi( 1979,1985,2002,2003. )See al so S. P.Sat he ( 2002) ,t reat i
ses on
const it
ut i
onal /admi nistr ativel awbyA.T.Mar kose,S.N.Jai n,M. P.Jai n,I. P.Massey ,M. C.Jai n
Kagzi .M.P.Si nghB. B.Pande,P.N.Si ngh,andM. P.Si ngh( amongot heremi nentschol ars)hav e
alsoexpl oredaspect sofKr ishna’ sj ur ispr udence,See,f orar ecentanal ysis,Wout erVadenhol e
(2002. )Nof ully-f l
edgedI ndi anf emi nistcr itiqueofhi sof ten‘ poli
tical l
yi ncor rect ’dictionhasy et
emer ged.
4
TheSupr emeCour tCasesCaseFi nderdat abasement ions, Jul y20042, atleast64ar t i
clesi nits
Jour nal(Iexcl udeher et hoseaut hor edbyKr ishna)di scussi ngKr i
shna’ scont ribut i
on;t hisr ough
countper hapst hemostwel lcr af tedcont ribut ionr emai nst hatofPr ofessorK. M.Shar ma( 1981. )
Af ullarchi veofschol arlyanal y sesofhi swor kon,andof f,t heHi ghBenchi sy et,af ternear lya
quar tercent uryofhi sr etirement ,hasy ett obeassembl ed!Pr ofessorShar ma’ slamentatt he
absenceoft hegenr eofj udicial biogr aphyal sor emai nsunf or tunat elyunhear d.
5
Thequest ionofi mpactmust ,ofcour se, ext endbey ondt heSupr emeCour t‘Br ethren’ andext end
toawi derj udicial fr
at ernityi ncl usiv eofappel lateandev endi st ri
ctj udici ar y.
6
Thedi fferencesamongt heseJust icesr emai nnot abl e.Just icesKr ishnaI y erandChi nnappa
Reddyr eadwi del ybey ondl awandj ur i
spr udence,mor et hancanbesai doft heot hercompani on
Just i
ces.AndJust i
ceChi nnappaReddywasev enal ittlemor ef i
nel ygr oundedi nMar xiant heor y
thanKr i
shna.Just i
ceD.A.Desai wascl earlyoft heLef tper suasi onandast rongchampi onoft he
wor kingcl asses; he, howev er ,di sdai nedt heor y.Sodi dJust iceBhagwat i.Just iceBhagwat iunli
ke
Just i
cesChi nnappaReddyandD.A.Desaiwascl ear lynotofanyMar xianper suasi on;Kr ishna
wascl osert ot hel attert woi ni deol ogi calor i
ent ation.Judi cialpr agmat ism wasav i
rtuewi th
Just i
ceBhagwat i
;het ri
edt oachi ev ewhatwaspr udentandwi l
lendur ei nt i
me.Eachsoughtt he
ri
ghtmomentf orhi stor i
cv erdi ctandal mostal way sf oundt his.Butt hequestoft her ightmoment
differ edasKr i
shna, andt osomeext entJust icesDesai andReddy ,di dnothav easal ongat enur e
asJust i
ceBhagwat i
.Accor dingl yt hepaceofj udicialv alourr eachedv ariedi nt erse,t hought hey
col l
ect ivelyand i ndiv i
dual lynev ermi ssed t o at tack t he t enet s ofl egall i
ber alism.Just i
ce
Bhagwat iwasper hapst hemostast ut eamongt hem i nt ermsofcr aftsper sonshi p;hechannel ed
hischal lengest ol egall i
ber alism wi thi ni t sownconf ines, wher east heot hert hr eeJust i
ceschose
dist i
nct l
yr adicalpat hway sofi nter rogat i
on.Al lputt oget herexpandedt heboundsofj udicial
act ivism butKr ishnaal onest rov et oaccel erat ei tshi stor icf utur etime.

Thesear enomer eimpr essi

onisti
cobser vations;myownwr it
inghasf r
equent l
ytesti
fi
edtot hese
commonal it
iesanddi f
ferencesont hespeci f
icstylesofact i
vistj
ustici
ngt heseFourMusket eers
sor ichlyandf ort
unatelybr oughttot heapexcour t .Butitneedssay i
ngt hatt hedif
ferences
amongt hem remainassi gnifi
cantast hecommongr oundtheyshared.Thisessaydoesnotal l
ow
spacef ort r
acinginter
necinest ri
fe.Howev er,iti
ssi gnifi
cantthatthatJust i
ceDesaiwasmor e
frequentlyembat t
ledwi thJust i
ceBhagwat ithant heot hertwoJust ices.JusticeReddyused
Mar xianinsi
ghtsoftenmor esubt l
ythanKr ishna.Thet hreeJusti
cesrarelydiff
eredwithKrishnain
termsofj udici
aloutcomesbuteachpur suedr easonedj udici
alelaborationinv erydi
st i
ncti
ve
modes.Theyador edKr ishna’smessi anicjurisprudencebutf ounddi ff
erentway sandmeansof
know how thefr
ater
naldy
namicanddif
fer
enceamongt hem,aswel
last
heir
coll
eaguesontheHighBench,af
fect
edt
hejudi
cialchoi
cesthathemadef
rom
casetocase.

Kr ishnahi mselfwast odescribet heemer gi

ngdi fferenceinov er
allterms
thatcont rasted justi
ceswho wer e‘ populistactiv
ists’and t hose mer elyt he
‘
shopkeeper sofl egaljustice.
’Butbot h‘populi
sts’and‘ shopkeeper s’differed
amongt hemsel vesandwi t
heachot her.Uneasycoal i
ti
onsamongt heseBr ethren
alsor emai nednecessar y;t
he‘populists’hadtoasof t
encar rythe‘shopkeeper s’
witht hem, ast heyhadal sot oall
owt obecar ri
edbyt hem; withi
nsuchexi genci es
ofj udicialcoal it
ion,necessaryforagr eedandst ableout comes,i tisv ai
nt ol ook
fora hi gh or derofi deologi
calconsi stency.Consi derations ofi nsti
tutional
i
nt egrityandpr estigeoftenmut ate,
thoughal mostnev ersi l
ence, t
hepoweroft he
act i
vistjudi ci
al voi
ce.Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case
Nott obei gnor edi st heambi ti
ont ospeakt ot hei nev i
tabl yf i
nitef utur eof
const itut
ionali nterpret ati
on.Bot ht he ‘ shopkeeper s ofj ust i
ce’as wel lt he
‘
popul i
stact i
vi
st s’remai naf fl
ictedbyt hishi ghj udicial ambi tion.Bot hunder stand
theirr oleasexceedi ngt hepr oduct ionoff ungi bledeci sionalout comest hat
somehow ‘ settle’thei nstantcaseorcont r
ov er sy.ApexJust i
cesaspi r
eal way s
andev erywher eadegr eeofi nterpr eti
v eimmor tal i
ty.Howev er ,onlyt heact iv i
st s
volubl yarticulatet hisambi tioni nt ermsofcr aftingal egacyt hatf osterst hei rown
disti
nct ivepr e-commi t mentt ohi gherconst itut i
onalv al
ues,v irtues,andv isi ons.
OtherJust icesseekt ospeakr at
heri naudibl yt ot hef utureofi nterpretat i
onbut
theirgent ler esignat i
ont ot hei mper ativesofi nst i
tutionali ntegr ityoft hej udi cial
processandpoweri snott oal way s t ober eadilyassi mi latedwi thj udi cial
restrainti
vism, passi vi
sm, orev enabdi cati
on.Theycr aftthef ut ur elegacyt hr ough
thedi scipline,andf orce, ofst aredeci sis,withi nwhi chal onet hei rownv er sionsof
const itut
ionalv aluesmayf indasecur eni chei nt of uturehi st or i
es.Bot hsor tsof
Justicesr out i
nelyacceptt hatt hei rdemi sef rom t hehi ghBenchexhaust st hei r
powert o speakt ot he f ut ure ofi nterpret ation;upon r etirementt heyr ar ely
arti
cul atet heguar dianshi poft hei rinterpretat ionall egacy .Kr ishnaf urnishest he
onlyI ndianexcept i
on; hehasemer gedasanar ticulatepubl iccr iticandi nv igilat or
ofhi ssuccessor s.Forhi ml i
feof ft heBenchi sasi mpor tant, per hapsev enmor e,
asl i
feont heBenchbecausepopul istact ivism i snotexhaust edbyt heactof
polit
icalgr acet hatel ev atesaci t
izent oanapexJust ice;rat her ,hebel iev est hat

enact
ingi
t,andi
nthepr
ocessr
e-def
ini
ngi
t.

I
nmyt
ri
but
etoD.
A.Desai
onhi
sfi
rstdeat
hanni
ver
sar
y,Iar
ti
cul
atet
hei
rcamar
ader
iet
hus:

‘
Howdowecel ebr
atehi m asapar toft hejudici
altri
umv i
rate,t
heTr i
mur t
i?Inmanyaway ,hei s
i
nsepar ablefrom KrishnaI yerandChi nnappaReddy .Toget her
,t heyst ormedt heci
tadeloft he
Indi
an bour geoisjurisprudence.Toget her
,t heyinstall
ed new i cons ofsoci al
i
stjusti
ce and
progressivelaw.Toget her,theygav eshapet onewr ight
sandenf orcedv i
gor ousl
ytheoldones.
Toget her
,theyvali
ant l
ystrovet odi
sciplinethecapitali
stclassestot hediscipli
neofhumanr ights
andt heruleoflaw.Toget her,thenurturedtheconstituti
onal di
stancebet weent heShastr
iBhav an
(theof fi
ci
alseatoft heLaw Mi nistr
y )and BhagwandasRoad ( si
ti
ng t heApexCour t
.)But
Dhirubhaialoneinventedt heartofjudicial‘
ter
rori
sm’ andputi tt
ost unningwi seuse.’
j
udging t
hej ust
icesisaper ennialconsti
tutionalestateofal lconsci
enti
ous
ci
ti
zens.Thiscontri
buti
onseekst oempl otKrishna’scomplexlegacyintermsof
messagesthatitmayst il
lcarryf
orI ndi
a’semi nentcontemporaryJusti
ces,who
i
ncli
netowardsast r
uctur
aladjustmentofj udicialact
ivi
sm,intandem withthe
macroeconomic changes t hat now,f or wealor woe,def ine the Indi
an
gl
obali
zati
on.

ThePr
omi
seoft
heTr
anscendent
al

Somewhatunusual l
y,Itakeasmyst artingpoi ntnotj ustthel andmar k
7
j
udgment sbyKr ishnabutr at
herthetextofoneofhi ssev eralspeeches,whi ch
mostar t
iculatel
y sums up hi sj udi
cial‘philosophy ’whi ch Iher e name as
‘
transcendent alj
ur isprudence.’Inthistext,Kr i
shnadef endshi sowncher ished
positi
onsagai nstt hef i
erceat t
ackonj udi
cialact iv
ism launchedmostnot ablyby
8 9
ChiefJust i
ceHi dy at ul
lahont heonehand andH. M.Seer vaiont heot her .
Neitheroft hesei coni cfiguresrespondedt oKr ishna’sr ebutt
al.Theyhad,asi t
were,finall
yst atedt heircaseagai nstjudicialact i
vi
sm,whi cht heysomehow
beli
evedt obeunanswer able.

Kr i
shna’st extexempl ifi
es hi sv ery own i magery oft ranscendent al
j
ur i
sprudence.Ev enther udiment arysenseof‘ tr
anscendence’asgoi ng‘ bey ond’
entail
sunder standing,notal way sr eadi l
yathand,i nvi
tesdiff
icul tl abour sof
under standi ngt hatwhi chhasi nt urnt obeal sot r
anscended.Thesubt l
etyof
textualmov esr emainsf orbidding,i ndeed.Att imes,t hisgoing‘bey ond’means
simplyt ranscendi ngt hecoloniali nher itance;atti
mes, i
tsigni
fi
esr ev erenceowed
tot hev ar i
ouslyconst r
uctedj ust i
cepot enti
aloft heI ndi
anConst it
ut i
on;andat
ti
mes,i talsor equi r
est heJust icest ogobey ondt heConst it
uti
oni tself,af orm
thatNegr iev okesi nhi sInsur genci es.Butt hepassagef r
om wher ewear eto
wher e we al loughtt o be poses t he quest i
on bel oved ofphi losopher s:to
transcendi sgobey ond‘appear ance’ to‘ r
ealit
y,
’thephenomenal t
ot henoumenal ,
thepar t
iculartot heuniversal,errort ot ruth,expedienttotheessent ial,cont i
ngent
tot henecessar y.Insheerj urispr udent i
alterms,t hi
smov emar kst hepassage
from theposi ti
vel aw( l
awt hati sposi tedbyt hewi llofthe‘sover
ei gn’)t o‘natural
l
aw’( law posi t
edbyt her easonofGod,by‘ Nature,orbyhumanr eason. )A
ceasel essquestf orthe‘higherl aw’def i
nesKr i
shna’sendeav orsatj uridicaland
j
ur i
sti
ct ranscendence.

Krishna’sCategori
calI
mperati
veforpost col
oni
alconst
it
uti
onaljust
ici
ng
understandablyremainsbewil
deri
ngtomostofhi serst
whil
eandcontempor ar
y
Bret
hrenasal soforepist
emiccommuni t
ies.Iknowitasafact(f
rom numerous
conversationswithSupremeCourtJusti
ces,someofwhom Iremainpri
vil
egedto

7
See,Kr
ishnaIyer,(
1984.)I
ncident
all
y,al
lpageref
erencest
ot hi
stextar
einter
msofpr
intcopy
becauseIr el
yhereont he‘
download’pagi
nati
onavai
labl
eattheSCCCaseFinder
.
8
See, M.Hidyat
ull
ah,(1984.
)
9
See.H.M.Seer vai,
(1987)1871-802026-
29;andUpendraBaxi
, (
1983.
)
clai
m asconst itut
ionalandper sonalfriends)t hattheyr emainratheri nnocentof
the extraor dinary discourse,i nl it
erary and cul turalt heory
,const i
tuti
ng t he
‘
post col
oni al’(see,especi allyHal lward,2001. )NordomanyI ndianappel late
Justiceshav et heenor mousgoodf ortune( thetimeandt heener gy)t opursue
concept ualandsoci alhistori
esofcol onialism.Kr ishnahi mselfdoesnotqui te
exploret heunset t
ledrelati
onshi pbetween‘ coloni
ali
sm’ and‘ i
mper i
alism’ (Young,
2001:1- 43. )Thedef aultset ti
ngofI ndianl egalschol arshipnecessar il
ybr i
ngs
‘
home’( tot heirstudents–t hef utureleader soft heBarandBench)t heobl i
vion
ofthesecr uci aldiscourses.Thet heoretici
ndi genceofI ndianlegaleducat ionand
researchent ailst heunf ortunateconsequencewher et heBarandt heBench
remai nssat i
sfiedwi thquot ati
onalj urisprudenceasabadgeofer udit
ion,and
evenwi sdom.Not catering to India

Themassi veandpopul ousAngl ophiles( ormayoneev ensayAngl o-

philist
ines?)oft heBarandt heBenchdonotqui teunder standt hepl eni
tudeof
theKr ishnaindictment .Theyseenot hingi ntr
insicallywr ongint hetradi ti
onoft he
common l aw,whi ch ent ail
sa l arge measur e ofuncr it
icaldef erence t ot he
execut iveandthel egislatur
e.Int heirunder st
andi ng, adjudi
catorycult uressi t
e,as
wel lasmi meandmi ne,justi
ceaccor dingt othel aw asaf ulsomer esour cefor
respectf orthesepar ationofpower sandt heconst i
tuti
veambi gui
t iesofst are
deci si
s.Theyt husseenot hi
ngwr ongi nappr oachi ngt het asksofconst i
tuti
onal
i
nt erpretatonasi
i ftheConst itutioni tselfwasast atute,eveni fanoxy moronic
‘
higherl aw’st atute,inv i
ti
ng pr actices ofr eadi ng gui ded byt he canons of
statutoryconstruct i
on.Not only letter but spirit of the Constitution/law should be looked at
Theyunder stand,ofcour se,t hatBr it
ishcol oniali
sm waswr ong,ev en
obnoxi ousbutt hinkoft hel egacyoft hecommonl aw asaki ndofl i
berat i
on
theology .Thedomi nantdi scoursedoesnotr egar dt her ecepti
onoft hecommon
l
awt r aditi
onofj ust i
cingasanyv iciousaspectofcol onizati
on;rather,itsalutes
the gr eatconst ituti
onalcor pus ofa Dur ga Das Basu orH.M.Seer vaias
testi
moni alstocol oni
all egall i
beralism.Indeed,i tjustifi
espur sui
tofi nterpreti
ve
practicesofaconst i
tut i
onwi thint hecommonl aw t r
aditi
onsofj usti
cing.Put
anotherway ,t
hewor l
dhi storicIndianConst it
utioni sthenr eadi nthesemodesof
i
conicser vit
ude, asamer eunf oldmentoft heGov ernmentofI ndiaAct ,1935, and
muchel sebesi des.I nt hisi mager y,precociousl yact i
v i
stIndianjusticesemer ge
asnomor ethanpal er eplicasofcommonl awj udicialact i
vi
sm ofaDenni ngora
Scarman!Thi ssortofr eadi ngindeedf ur
therconsol idates,andmasksandmar ks,
theabi dingf ormsofj uridical andjudi ci
alre-colonizat i
on.

Allt hist hus evolves the f ashi

oning of a her meneutic monst er:
constit
uti
onalcommonl aw.Onewoul d ordinari
lythinkt hatt heConst it
uti
on
requi
redr atherthecreatonofanuncommonl
i aw,thatist heinv ent
ionofwhol e
seresofsuigener
i i
sinterpret
ivetradit
ioninwhi chev enj udicialdeferenceto
l
egislat
ivepol i
cyenactmentwast obef i
rmlydiscipl
inedbyt hei nher
entlogicsof
fundament alrightsandhumanf r
eedoms,out si
det he‘ chainofpr ecedent’(
to
echot hef eli
citousphraseofJul i
usSt one.)Ofcour se,t hatcodehast obe
ul
t i
mat elyev olvedbyj udici
ali nterpretat
ion.Thequest ionst i
llremai ns:does
deference t o co- ordi
nat e branches r equire Justi
ces t o appl y pr
inciples of
statutoryconst ructi
oni nadj udgingt hev ali
dit
yofl egislat i
veandadmi ni strat
ive
actionchal l
engedasv iolati
veofbasi chumanr ightsandf reedomsguar ant eedby
Part111 oft he Const i
tuti
on? Shoul d even t he iconocl astic pl
eni tude of
const i
tuti
onalhumanr ighttor emedi esf orther edressaloff undament alrights
vi
olation (Article 32)be made subj ecttot he doct r
ines ofconst ruct iver es
j
udicat a,andt helawofl aches( thatimmuni zeshumanr ightsv i
olati
onsbecause
petiti
onersbr ingt hecauset ool ate,undert het empor alcal culusoft heI ndian
Li
mi tationAct )10?

Kr
ishnawhol esomelycombat st hisjudi
cialr educti
onism bydecr yi
ngt he
commonl awcol oni albequestas‘ imper iall
egalcul ture.
’Hiscr i
tiquer emainsat
homewi t
h hedi scursiveformat ion now phr ased ( bycont empor aryemi nent
Canadianconst ituti
onalschol arship)as‘ theunityofpubl iclaw,’whi chpr imaril
y
suggestst hat‘ther ul
eofl aw i st her ulei soff undamentall egalv aluesofa
soci
etythatar elocat edinv ari
oussour ces,writtenandunwr i
tten,internati
onal
anddomest i
c’,valuest hati
nt urndi rectnear -
obliterati
onofdi sti
nctionsbet ween
‘
consti
tuti
onal ’and‘ admini
st r
ative’l aw andj urisprudenceand‘st anding’and
11
‘
just
ici
abil
ity .
’

Thenot ionof‘ i
mper i
al i
sm’has,manyhi stories;andr elationshipbet ween
‘
col oniali
sm’and ‘ imperialism’i s noty etfull
y under stood ( Young,2001. )
Krishna’suseofbot ht het ermsr emai nspol emicist,int hebestsenseoft hat
wor d.Kr i
shnadoesnotqui tedi st
inguisht he‘colonial’from t he‘ imperial’int hi
s
12
text buti tiscl earthathehasi nf ullv i
ew therol ethatt hel aw andl awy ers,
cour t
sandj udges,playi nt er msoff ost eri
ngeconomi cexpl oitat i
onandpol i
tical
domi nat i
on. ‘Imperial legal cul t
ure’ const itut
es v arious i nter
locking and
i
nt ert
wi nedsitesofar ticulat orypracticesofr eproduct i
onof‘ classbias’oft he
maker s,int
erpretersandenf or
cersoft helaw,andev ent heact sofmaki ng/
remaki ng/readi ngtheConst i
tuti
onitself.Hedescr ibes( bor r
owi nganexpr ession
10
Idesi stmuni ficentcasel awci tationsandr eferencest omywr it
ing, Iur geinterest edreader sto
rev i
sitt hisdiscour se.Asconcer nsr esj udicata, awor dofexpl anat ioni si nor der.BecauseAr t i
cle
226endowsSt ateHi ghCour tswi t
haco- equalj urisdicti
ont omoni t orhumanr ight sv i
olative
admi nistrati
veandl egislativeper f
or mance,t heSupr emeCour thasof tenhel ddi smi ssaloft he
causeaspr ev ent i
ngf urtherr ecour set oi t
.Thi si gnor esaconst i
tutionalf act:theAr ti
cle226
power sofHi ghCour tsar edi scretionar y,wher easAr ticl
e32conf ersaf undament alr i
ghtt o
const i
tutionalremedi es.Ihav eaddr essedt hispr oblemat i
casear lyast heSev entiesi nmyear ly
wr it
ing.
11
Dav id Dy zenhaus, (2004)1.Hi s claim t hatt he Canadi an Supr eme Cour t’
s per formance
obl i
gat ingadmi nistr
at i
v e/ quasij udicialact i
on/act ant swi t
hadut yt ogi v ereasonsi si naugur ali
n
the common l aw const itutionaladj udicati
on r emai ns bot hi naccur ate and woundi ng byi ts
compr ehensi vei nadv er tencet ot heI ndianj uri
st i
candj uridicalf eat s.To whatext entst hen
Just icesconst it
ut ea‘ hegemoni cbl oc’,const i
tutingt hev i
sagesoft he‘ Postmoder nPr ince’(Gill
,
2003)r emai nsaquest ioni nv i
tingfur t
herpur suitini nter-/mult i
-di sciplinar ysetti
ngs.
12
Buthi sotherspeechesandwr it
ings( toov olumi noust obeci t edher e) ,especial
lyi nrelati
ont o
TheUr uguayRoundandI ndia’saccessi ont oWTO,i nveighagai nstt heemer genceofanew
impar t
ial gl
obal lawandcul ture.
Global South’s contribution is ignored: S.A.-Transformative Constitutionalism, India-PIL
ofFr ankl
i
nD.Roosev elt
)appel latejusticesandl awyersas‘ ther oyalistsoft he
economi corder’(p.3)who cont i
nuet or eproduce‘theRajv intageadv ersary
system pickl
ed in Austinian jur i
sprudence’( p.
8.)Justices and l awy ers who
everydayoperatet hecoloni all
egalcodesandst at
utespar t
icipateal soi nt he
perpetuat
ion oft he ‘i
mper i
all egalcul ture’
,and t hus cont i
nue t o pr omot e
‘
proceduralbigotr
y ,tr
adit
ionalconst ructi
on,r emedialrigidi
ty,andl egalj ust i
ce
escapism.’Theyr eproducet hedi vorcebet weent helaw andj ust i
cet hrough
‘
exot i
cadjecti
valor t
hodoxi esst atutorymy stiques,andexpensi ve,f or malisti
c
excesses’(p.
9.)
Effect of further that culture
Post coloni ality,in Kr ishna’ sv iew,st ands i naugur ated by t he I ndian
Const itution, whi chsummonsJust i
cesi npar ti
cular, andot herl awper sons, t
ot he
tasksofl iber ation–l i
ber ati
onatl eastf rom t heBr itishRaji mper iallegalcul tur e.
Butt heymaynotr eceiv et hissummons,ordef aul tinr esponse,whent hey
13
per ceiv et he‘ par amountpar chment‘ with‘ hangov er sofaVi ctorianv intage. ’
Rat her ,theConst it
ut i
onmar ks,andKr i
shnaendl essl yr eiteratesi nhi sj udici al
opini ons, theNehr uv i
anphr ase‘ trystwi thdest iny.’Forhi mt hen, theConst it
ut i
on
doesnotsi gnalt hepoi ntofar ri
v albutr athert hei nf i
niteampl i
tudeofpoi ntsof
depar turet hatj urisprudent iallycombatt heency cl
opedi cf or msofpr oduct i
onof
the di stinct ivelyI ndian human r ightlessness.Kr ishna ur ges Just ices ( and
hopef ullyt hel awper sonsaswel l)tof ullyt ounder standt hatt heirsist hepor tfolio
ofsoci al transf ormat ion, nott heev erydayl edgeruponwhi chmayst andi nscr ibed
miscel laneous quot idi
an det ails of l awy erlyr egistrat i
on of democr at ic
l
egi timat ionofpowerandal soi t
sst agger i
ngdef icits.Ledger–keepi ngpr oduces
account sbutwhati srequi redi st hepol it
icsofpr oduct ionofaccount abili
ty ,in
whi chj udici alact or sandt heirchoi cesmustpl ayasi gnifi
cant ,att imesdeci siv e,
role.Onl yonsuchar eading,hi scal lfora‘ nationalaccount abi l
ity’ofj usti
ces,
entai l
ing‘ act i
v i
stsensi bi l
it
y ’(p.2)f urnishesacl ari
oncal l.Kr ishnaur gesI ndian
j
ust icest ogobey ondt hef unct i
onalr oleoft hatl i
kens‘ thecommonl awj udici al
review’ (i
nMar yEber t’
sl umi nousphr ase)t ot he‘canar yint hecoalmi ne, war ning
ofimpendi ngdi sast erbutunabl et odeal wi t
hi t
’ (
Dy zenhaus, 2004: 15.)
Constitution
Al
lthi
sinv
olv
es,f
as
orKr
i
departure:
shna,ar
efl
exi
ver
eadi
How,
ngoft
heConst
it
Roles
uti
onas
i
ndet erminat ef or
msofengagement sbyt hemul t i
tudest hat(agai ninNegr i’
s
words)addr essthe‘ fundament alelement ’oft he‘ continualcreationofanew
world.’Judi cialandj uri
dicalperfromativi
tyre-castsJust i
cesaspar tnersint his
‘
product i
vecooper ation.’Kri
shnal uminousl yinsists,andexempl i
fies,theNegr i
-
l
iker e-definiti
onoft he‘ pol
iti
cal’wher ei
nt heConst i
tut
ionf arfrom bei ng‘ the
rout
ineofunchangedr epet i
ti
on,’anener v
atingdi scour seconcerningt heor igi
nal
i
ntent i
ont hatsi gnifybutsomanyef f
ectsof‘ deadl abour ,
’inst
eadandf orever
seekst oredef i
ne‘thepol i
ti
cal.
’Thatphr asenames, forKrishna,t
hev erybeingof
j
udicialpr ocessandpower .Noj udi
cialper sonagei nthel ongl i
neagef rom a
Cooke t o Car dozo,and bey ond,has f ound such r hetori
calampl it
ude t hat

13
Thet urnofphraseisi
nter
est
ing.Kri
shnahi
msel
f,bei
nganabsol
uteteet
otaler
,cannevert
est
if
y
t
ot heexperienceofahangover!Butevenwhenhedoesnotknow inebr
iat
ion,sur
elyheknows
whatintoxi
cati
onis.
contr
ast
st hel
ivi
ngjudi
cialpr
axiswit
hformsofdeadj udi
cial(
andj ur
idical
)
l
abour,t
hatdef
inethe‘
pol
iti
cal
’inthe‘
j
udi
cial
’as‘
unchangedrepeti
ti
on’without
di
ffer
ence.

Antonio Negri’
s di ssipation oft he Mar xi
an ‘classes’into amor phous
‘
mul t
it
udes’hascausedmani folder uditepost -Marxi
anpr oductionofanxi eti
es
(see,Passav ant&Dean,2004butseenowHar dt&Negr i
,2004) ,whichIdonot
revisi
ther e exceptt o say t hatt he changi ng patterns ofI ndian f i
ft
y plus
const i
tuti
onalism,testifypr eci
sel ytot hepr owessoft hemul tit
udeagai nstthe
mi nuscule.Ont hi
sr egistermanyaer udit
ecr i
ti
queoft heact i
vistjudicialarchiv
e
remai nsomewhat‘ ahi stroi
cal’int hepost colonialt
imespaces.Regar dlessoft hi
s
discourse,Krishnainvitesnev er-endingl aboursoff ormsofpost colonialreadings
oft hetext,andcontext ,ofIndianconst i
tuti
onalism.

Hisher meneut icody sseyf orbidsanysi mpl esummat i

on, att hesamet ime
raisi
ngacr uci alquest ion:How mayr egimeanoi nt
edJust icest ranscendt he
reasonoft hest at e, andt hehumanr ight streasonoft heSt ate?Putanot herway ,
howmayapexJust i
cesgi v
ev oicet ot hemul ti
tudeagai nstt hemi nuscul ei nthei r
my ri
adst r
uggl est or e-shapet hesoci alandhi stori
cmeani ngof‘ const it
uent ’
power ?Thef or mi dabl edar ingt hatKr ishnat husof ferscont estst hemodeof
essent i
ali
str eadi ngofI ndianConst it
ut i
on,ar eadingt hatassumes,af teral l
,that
Justi
const
cesi
r
uct
nt
i
er
on.Kr
pr etagi
i
shnai
vent extoft
snotsonaï
heConst
v
et
it
ut
odenyt
ion, r
at
hatt
hert
her
hancr
eexi st
eatei
sanof
tbyact
f
ici Conc
sof
altext
namedast heConst i
tut i
onofI ndi a;sur elyitdoes.Buther emai nsast ut eenough
tosayt hati ti sat extbyi tselfdoesnotgener atei mper ativesofmeani ngandeption
signi
f i
cati
ont hatal way snecessar il
ybi nd Just icesexcepti n so f arast hey
chooset or
maynotconcei
egar di
vet
tasbi
heirj
ndi
udi
ng;t
cialv
hati
ocat
s,i
i
nt
onasj
heexactpr
udicialv
opor
acat i
tioni nwhi
on.Putanot
chJust
herway
i o
ces
,a
f
‘
popul i
stact
summons t
ivist ’Just
he const
i
cei snev
ant obl i
eronj
gat or
udicialandj
y summons t
uri
di
or
calv
e-dr
acat
aft /r
i
on;herv
e- i
magi
ocat
ne t
i
Consti
on
he
Const i
tuti
on.Undert hisconcept ion,const i
tutionaljust i
cingal mostal way sr e-
castst hef igur eofaj usticei nt o asi ngleper son const it
uentassembl y tution
,an
assembl yt hatar ticul atest hev oicesoft hepastandpr esentmul ti
tudesandt hei r
aspirati
onal str uggl esf orl i
ber t
y ,equal it
y, di
gnity,andj ustice.

Thisi nsur gentreading( gi

venal litsexi gentenact ment sf rom t heHi gh
Bench)ent ai l
saccent uati
onoft hespr i
tov erthecor pus.Thebodypol i
ticali
nt he
const i
tutionalt ext,andcont ext,i
si ndeedgr ossandcor rupted,especi all
yint he
August iniansenseoft hatt erm.ForKr i
shna,t hej udi cialr ole,task,power ,and
processf indt heirf ut
ureint hedi scovery( eveni nv ent ion)oft he‘ Kingdom of
Ends’ (toev okeaKant i
anphr ase)ofasecul ar‘fi
ght i
ngf ai t
handf oundi ngcr eed’
(p.2)Kr ishna i nsiststhatconst ituti
onalj udici
ali nt erpr etation promot e,ev en
proselytize,a secul ari
st,and secul ari
zi
ng, ’socialist’i mager ythatconst ant l
y
reinventst hef ormsofhumanr ightsasl anguages,l ogi cs,andpar alogicsof
j
ust i
ce.Ashesay s,memor ably:‘Todef yordenysoci alj usticet othehumbl est
Indian,ev enf rom t hehighestcour t,istoactnotonl yext ra-consti
t ut
ionall
ybut

Judicial Role
cont
ra-const
it
uti
onal
l
y’(
p.2.
)

I
nt erms ofsheerj udici
alpr agmat i
cs,t hi s ent i
re summons r equires
Justicest or espondt osocialdemandsf or‘ int erpr etati
onalcr eati
vity,
’dev i
ce
‘
remedi alreali
sm,andpr oceduralnon- f
ormalism, ’andr egar djudicialprocessas
a mode of‘ impr egnati
ng oldl aws wi th const itut i
onalv alue meani ngs.’It
confrontsadi fficultyandachal lenge:t heov erall‘ BenchBaret hos’doesnot
favort hatt he Supr eme CourtofI ndiato‘ fulfil
l… par tnershipi nt he value
revoluti
on’inaugur atedbyt heConst i
tuti
on.Kr i
shnat henr emai nsnotal t
ogether
bewi l
deri
ngwhenhesuggest st hathumanr ight s( hereconst ruedi nauni que
conflati
on,acr eativeassembl ageoft hePr eambl e,Par t111embodi mentof
fundament alr ight s,PartIV const i
tuti
onalobl igat i
on t of urthert he Directi
ve
Principl
esofSt at ePol i
cy,and I V-A mandat ed f undament aldut i
es0fI ndian
citi
zens)oughtt o be taken ser iouslyin dimi ni shi ng,ev en demol ishi
ng,t he
vestigesofcol oni allawandj ur
ispr udence;thatt hegr eatcol onialcodi f
icati
onsof
civi
landcr imi nalpr ocedure,andofev i
dence,mustbesubj ectedt oacont i
nual
vigil
antdiscipli
neofcascadi ngstrictconst i
tuti
onal scr ut
iny.

Kri
shnal eads,byexempl aryi nterpretati
on,t hepat hway sofpr ogr ess.He
hast husnodi f f
icult
yi nconv ertngst
i atutoryrightofbai lint oaconst itut
ional
ri
ght ;const i
tuti
onal l
yout l
awi ngsol itaryconf i
nement ;moni toringt hemandat or y
deat hsent encesandt hef ormst hatmani festextremear bitrar i
nessofj udicially
i
mposed deat h sent ences;ev en i nterrogat i
ng execut i
v e cl emencyi n capi tal
offences, andr emar kabl yfacili
tatingar emar kableconv er sionofAr ti
cle21r ights
tol i
feandl ibertyfrom t hedi sciplinaryr egi meof‘ thepr ocedur eest abl
ishedby
l
aw’( thedomai nofPar l
iament )int oaj udicial
lyempower edr e-wr
iti
ngt hatnow
i
nsi stsonexpandi ng‘ substantiveduepr ocess’(theev er-expandi ngdomai nof
activistj udicialr evi
ew. )I nt hissense,‘ transcendence’ger mi nal
lyev okest he
notionofbr inging backt heConst i
tutioni nt heev ery day nessoft her outine
career sofi nterpretivi
sm.Kr ishnaseekst onor mal izej udicialact ivi
sm,i nway s
thati nvoke pr acti
ces ofr ésistance by ‘ l
egali
st’/‘ f
iedl i
st ’Br ethr
en.He de-
problemat izesact i
vi
stj usti
cingbyr ecal li
ngChi efJust i
ceEar lWar r
en’sev ocative
met aphor :‘Ourj udgesar enotmonksorsci entistsbutpar ticipantsint hel i
ving
stream ofnat i
onal li
fe’ (
p.1.
)
Transcendence
Thisl umpi ngwei r
dlyf ascinates!Themonkandsci enti
st,f arfrom the
mer elife ofcont empl ation,bel ong t ogetheri n manyway st hatshape and
reshape t he ideology and mat erial
i
ty oft he world;each i ndeed pr oduces
separatelyandi ndiv i
dual l
ycompl exl
yi nterl
inkedsacredandsecul arutopias,
evendy st
opias!Kr ishnai ssur elymi stakenwhenhet hi
nkst hatmonksand
scienti
stsar enot‘ participantsi nt hel i
vingst r
eam ofnat ionall i
fe.’Buthei s
surelyrightinsay ingt hatJust icesoughtt oat tenddifferentl
yt hemodesof
productionofsoci alr eality.Thecommuni t
iesofmonksand sci ent
istsmay
i
ndeed pr oduce human r ight
lessness wher eas Justi
ces oughtt o produce/
reproducecondi t
ionsoft hepol it
icsofpr oduction of
,and f or,humanr ights.
Thus,hei nvitesnotj urisprudenceofr etreatbutaj uri
sprudenceofengagement

Analogy and crux

wi
tht
hef
utur
esofhumanr
ight
sinagl
obal
i
zingI
ndi
a.

Bey ond t
his,Krishna’ssuccessor smayj ust l
yr emai n confused,ev en
ambi val
ent ,concerninghiscallto‘Destinati
onJust i
ce.’Tobesur e,Kri
shnaher e
evokest hei mageryofmeans andends.Butt hisdi al
ect i
cassur esno sur e
passagenegot iat
ing,ont heonehand,t henot ionthatt hel awi s‘ themeansand
j
usticeist heend’and,ont heot her,ther athercompel l
ingnot i
ont hati nt he
‘
const el
lationofvalues,intheIndianconst it
utionalset t
ing,endsar emeans’ (p.1.
)
Byt hisr hetori
c,ofcour se,Krishnasi gnifi
esa‘ cr
eedoft heConst i
tuti
on’t hat
aff
ir
ms‘ soci o-economi cjusti
ce’t hat‘binds’bot h‘ socialj usti
ceandl egali
ty.
’
Aspirati
onal lywholl
ywor thy,t
hismessagef allsunev enly ,
ev enifunder standabl y
,
and notonl yon t he summi tcour thear ing-impaired appel late extraordinary
j
udicialears. How Justice and law is inter-twined with each other
Kr ishna ev okes t he ‘ transcendent al’t hrough my r
iad,ev en r ev erent i
al,
recour set oiconocl asticel ement sint heconst i
tut i
on.Al lthisi nv olvesmani fold
serialact sofi nsur genti nt erpr etation.Att imes,t hisal so sy mbol izesgoi ng
bey ond const i
tutional i
sm i tsel f.Kr i
shna’ squestf ora hi gherl aw cannotbe
divorcedf r
om t ransgr ession,descr i
bedr ecent lybyDuncanKennedy( 1997: 342-
343)ast ransgr essi vear tifact ’or‘ per f
or mance’t hat“ ‘
shat ters”t he‘ formsof
“proper ”expr essi on i n or dert o expr ess t hatsomet hing t hatt hose f orms
suppr essed. ”I tthusspeci al izesi nal anguageofa‘ par t
icularki ndofdi srupt ion.’
Kr i
shna’ smi ntingofawhol lynew st y l
eofj udi cialpr osei spr obabl yt hemost
spect acul arexampl e,incont empor ar yjudicialannal s,oft ransgr essi vear t
ifact/
performance.Thosewhocompl ainabouthi suseofl anguageent irel
ymi sst he
natur eofhi squestf ort ranscendence.Kr i
shna’ sal ltoof requentassaul tson
conv ent ionalj udicialhabi tsofwr i
tingr emai ni nsepar abl ef rom hi ssear ch( as
Kennedydescr i
best hisinal toget heradi fferentcont ext )‘fori ntenseexper i
ence
14
i
nt hei ntersticesofadi sr upt edr at ionalgr id. ’ ForKr i
shna,t ransfor mat i
ve
praxesr equi r
et hatmor ethananyot hersetofconst i
tutionalact or s,adjudi cat i
ve
personages( ‘actant s’)displ aya‘ higherf unctionall oy alty’tot he‘ commandoft he
Const itut i
on.Her e,t het askofj uri
spr udent i
al( thoughnotonl yi nt hatf orm)as
transcendenceent ail
sr emar kabl edi scur si
v ef eat st hatar ticulat et hev isionsof
post coloni alconst itutionalismsandt heirlaw- way s.
Method
ButtheConst i
tuti
on,andt hisist hesecondt ropei nKr i
shna’sdi sr
upt i
ve
perf
ormance, isnotjustahi stor yofpower ,
itsapparatuses,andef fects.Rat her,i
t
remainsani neffablefuturehi storyofI ndianpeopl esinst ruggleagai nstthese,
alwaysawor ki nprogress.Kr ishnaconst ant l
yasksust or e-posi
tiont hedi alecti
c
betweensubj ectsandci ti
zensbyaski ngasi mple–l ookingquest ion‘ …whoar e
thepeople’
whom t heconst it
ut i
onandt hel aw, theJusticesandt hej urists,ought
toserveinadi stnctf
i iduciarycapaci t
y?Hi sansweri ssimpleanddi rect :peoples
always mustmean and r efert o peopl es condemned t o a stat e ofhuman
ri
ghtl
essness,ort he‘ lesmi ser abl
es( sic).’Thesear et heI anAt
ndi isudras,as
BabasahebAmbedkarnamedt heIndi
ansoci alandeconomi cproletariat.Krishna
14
See,
K.Namby
ar(
1974)f
orav
igor
ousdef
enseof‘
j
udi
cial
gobbl
edy
gook.
’
arti
culat
est hecommuni tiesofsuf f
eringas‘ thetonguless,t
attered,battered,
poli
cehunt ed,pov er
ty-
bit
ten’,‘r
apedadi v
asibellesanddowr yburntbr i
des,’‘
the
tort
ured prisoners,degr aded sl um dwel lers,homel ess pavement -dwell
ers,
bondedl abor er
s,sweatedl abor ers,anddi scri
minatedgender…’(p.5.)Insum,
theseconstitutethedist
incti
v eIndianHomoSacer( Agamben,1998) ,orasMar x
putt hisast he ‘
vastindustrialreserve army ’and whatcont empor arypost -
Mar xi
anlanguagesdescr i
beast he‘disposablepeoples.
’

NoJust iceofanApexCour ti
nanycont empor aryworldofjustici
nghasso
poignantl
yar ticulatedt hepr i
ncipal t
askofconst i
tut
ionaldevelopmenti ntermsof
theamel iorati
onoft he‘ weightofsuf f
ering’(toinvokePi err
eBour dieu’smov i
ng
phrase.)NoI ndianSupr emeCour tJust i
ce,bef oreandaf t
er,Kri
shnahasf ound
way sofar ti
cul ati
ng t he Indian peopl essuf feri
ngswi t
h such heav y,though
occasional l
ydense,i nvestmentofhi ghi ntendment .Her i
ghtl
yinsistst hatno
postcolonialconst itutional
ism orj urisprudencecant akehumanr ightsser iousl
y
when i tf ai
lst ot ake human/ socialsuf feri
ng ser i
ously.The Kr i
shna l egacy
remainst hus( intheDer ri
deani diom; Derrida,1994)pr of yhaunt
oundl ologi
cal .

The coupl ing of t he col oni

al i nheri
tance wi th t he chal l
enge of
transf ormat i
vepr axesposessomeext r
aordinarychal l
enges.Kr i
shnat ypi
call
y
framest hi
si ntermsofamassi v einterrogati
on:‘ Shouldthecour tpy ramidbe
corner ed byt hePr opr it
eri
atand j udicialbusinessbeconv erted into Pri
vate
Just iceLi mitedpai ntedPubl icJust i
ceUnl i
mited?’Thequest i
ont husposedi s
histor i
callyimmense:anyt rut
hfulanswerf ur
nishesacl ari
oncal ltoJusticesthat
theyshoul dt r
anscendt hei
rownl atentclassbi as,andf ur
therpersuadet heBart o
dol ikewi se.Farfrom r emai ni
ng‘ legaljusticemonger s,
’Justi
cesoughtt ocov er
t
themel sevesi nt
okni ght -
errantsf oranew const ituti
onali
sm intot heav atar
sof
social j ust i
ce popul ists. Further , Justices at wor k shoul d pr event the
expr opr i
ationofthel awandt heConst ituti
onbyspeci ali
ntereststhatbot hserve
andsubv erttheendsofal iberalconst i
tutionali
sm.

Understandabl y,notallthe‘Br et
hren’
,const i
tutedsev erall
yacr ossthehi gh
15
turnov erjudi
cialgener ations ,mayagr eewi t
ht hisunder standingoft het asks
fashioning a post colonialjurisprudence ofI ndia.And mostconspi cuously
disagreed,i n Krishna’sown l ifeti
me att he ApexCour t
;Kr ishna under stood
sagaci ouslythatt hel aboursoft r
anscendencehav et o beper f
ormedwi thi
n
forbiddinginstit
utionalcul tur
esandcont exts.Unsur pri
singly,then,hisdecisional
postur es,asmanyofhi scr it
icshav edemonst rated,asof t
enr emainmi redi n
16
‘
legalism’hehi msel fdescr i
bes. Kri
shnar emai nshi stor
icallymi ndfuloft hi
s
corpusofconst raints,whi chhedescr i
besinv i
vi
dpr ose,bir
thedbyt heveryangst
ofwor ki
ngwi t
hhi sBr ethren,thus:
15
TheSupr emeCour tJusti
cesreti
reatt heageofsixt
y-f
iveyear
s.Thisev enmeansr ather
vexatiousor dinati
onofJust i
cesasChi efJusticesofI
ndiaforconsti
tut
ionall
yexacer bated
tenuresofaf ewday s,weeks,ormonths!
16
Onehasj ustt oreadH.M.Seer vai
’sanaly
sesofsomeofKr i
shnaIy
erdecisions;butseet he
mor ethought f
ul observat
ionsinK.
M.Sharma( 1981.)
 TheI ndianj udici
aryi spassingthroughacr i
sisofidentit
y,spli
t
personality, and i deologi
cal ambi guity … ( t)
he instit
uti
onal
i
mbr oglios,compoundedbyi nter
nalant agoni sms,aggr av
atedby
para-poli
ticall at
encies and exacer bated by per specti
valand
perceptualdi v er
gences.[ This]has hor izontal
ly and verti
call
y
affectedt hef uncti
onalism ofjudicialpr ocess[ manifest
]int he
otherpat hologieswhi chmaket heCour t-system,from thebaset o
theapex ,ani nstr
umentofescal atingi ncr edi
bil
it
yandst ult
if
ying
disuti
lit
y( p.
2.)

Thi
sext r
aordinar yrefl
exiv i
tyisnotpervasivelycharacteristi
coft heIndi an,
andt heSout h,judicialandj uri
dicalperformance.I nthespeci fi
csettingoft he
IndianSupr emeCour t,thepat hologiesassumedf ormsofi nternecineintra-Cour t
sniperwar far
ebetweenChi efJust i
ceChandr achudandJust iceBhagwat i
,whi chI
foroncesuccessf ullymedi ated( Baxi,1983.)Char acter
isti
cal l
y,Kri
shnaseeks
heretot ranscendhi storiesofi ntr
a-Br et
hrenhur t
sbyt ranslatingitssocialcost s
ofhuman r i
ghtl
essness t hatt hus betrayst he ‘soci
alhopes oft he r obbed
brethrenhealingpeopl e’
sinjustices,suff
eredf orlongunderf eudal-
coloniallegal
orders….’

Per
plexi
ti
es

When Kr ishna i
ssues t he furthersummons agai nstthe ‘reacti
onary
resistancemov ement ,
’these‘newf orensicfor
cesf ighti
ng‘progressiveremedial
j
urispr udencefleshingoutsoci aljustice’i
ncarnati
ngadef enseof‘ bygonef ai
th
andi mper ialj
uridcali
se,forsaki
ngt hosev al
uesandofhumandi gnityandequal
ri
ght spr omisedt othecommonmi ll
ions,’i
tisnotpossi bl
et odenyconst i
tuti
onal
l
ov et ohi m,atleastbyt hosewhot reasurefut
uresofhumanr i
ghts.Ev enso,we
needt ounravel
, onthisregist
er,somedeepper plexi
ties.

Fi
rstandasal r
eadynoted,therei st
hepr oblem of‘essenti
ali
zi
ng’I ndian
const i
tut
ionali
sm t hatoff
erssomer atherquai ntsummat i
onsofi t
shopef ully
redempt i
v epot enti
alasabestpossi blereadingofi t
.Dower eadKr ishna’s
radicaljuri
sprudence as a performance oft heor et
ical
lyindigentreading of
Dwor kin’
st hesisconcerni
ngl aw asi ntegr
ity
)ori nsteadreadi tasof feringa
veil
ed criti
que?( Baxi
,2003.)Or,bet terstil
l,as a deepl ySout h experiential
grounded non- mi meti
cand inauguralpost uret owardst heend oft heNor th
j
urisprudentialhegemony?

Second,whatdi fferenceallthi
smaymaket oact sofreadingthenascent
compar ati
veconst it
utionali
sm formsoft al
k?Krishnahimselfcompl icatesan
approach t o an answert ot hi
s question by his penchantf orquot ati
onal
j
urisprudence;ev enhisv erybestdi sr
upti
v eperf
ormancesr emai nl
itt
eredwi th
explosivel
yabundantr eferencestobot hmajorandmi norauthori
alfi
guresi nthe
Northj uri
sprudenti
allandscapet hatinvi
tefurt
herthought,whichIdonother e
purse,thatSouthcannibali
zat
ionofNor thdiscoursemaymer el
yav engethe
l
at t
er.Kri
shna’
smult
itudinousev ocati
onofNor t
hjudici
aldeci
sionsandwr i
ti
ngs
reveal,i
nt hei
rcontext,bot ht he pathos and bathos ofthis genre,when
transpor
tedtosomeratherextraordinar
yIndi
ancontexts.

Thi
rd,Kri
shna’stranscendental
ism providesanar r
ati
v eofmultipleori
gins
that oscil
lat
e acr oss such di verse uni verses si gnif
ied by names so
17
i
ncommensur at
e as Mar x, Mahatma, and Mahar i
shi Mahesh Yogi !
‘
Transcendental
’thussubl i
mates,i
nv ari
egatedf usions,i
nKr ishna’
sfeelingprose,
the for
ms ofdi alecti
calmat eri
ali
sm wi th headycockt ai
ls ofdi v
er se I
ndian
spir
it
uali
ti
esthatcompl icateanyanalyti
cendeav or.Unravel
ingt hi
smi xpresent s
aformidablechall
engenami ngbothi t
s‘promise’ and‘peri
l.
’

Fr
iendsandEnemi
es

Fourth,Kr ishna’s not ion oft he di vi

de i nt he I ndian Supr eme Cour t
separ ates‘ deadl yenemi es’f rom car ing f ri
endsofconst ituti
onalj ust i
ceand
ri
ght s.Butt hisbi nar yr emai nshi ghly,ev endanger ously,indet ermi nate( aswe
know f rom di ii
fuxtpassages/negot iati
on t hatmar k manya mov ementof
discour sefrom Car lSchmi t ttoJacquesDer r
ida)especi all
ywhenwedi st
inguish
the‘ normal ’from t he‘ext raor di nar y’t
imeofconst i
tutionaladj udicat i
on.I st hen
thedi stincti
oni nv idioust hatcel ebratest hedi ssentofJust iceH. R.Khanna’ si n
thei nfamousHabeasCor pusCasedur i
ngt hemi d-t
imeoft heI ndianEmer gency
of1975- 76andf aul tsKr ishna’ sambi valentper formancehi stori
callypav i
ng,by
hisr efusalto‘ stay ’thecont inuat i
oni nof ficePr i
meMi nisterI ndiraGandhii nthe
faceofaj udiciallydecl ar edel ectoraldi squal i
fi
cation?Whatshal lwesayof
Krishna’ sfurthergr atui
tousj udi cialadv icet hattheel ectionl awmaybesetr i
ght
bya‘ quickact i
ng’l egislat uret hatwoul damendt heRepr esent ati
onofPeopl e’s
Actr etroactivelyt ocur et hi s‘ veni al’vi
ce?( Seet heanal ysisi nBaxi ,1980,Aust i
n,
18
1999) .Ofcour se,t he endi ng oft he Emer gency Rul e al so pr ov i
ded an
astoni shingpl atformf ort heenact mentofKr ishna’spr ogramschr i
ftforact i
vist
j
udi cialpopul i
sm.Butt hingsmayhav ebeenot herwise,pr ol ongingt hepol i
tical
ti
meandci rcumst anceofEmer gencyt oani ndef i
nit
ef uture.Wewoul dt henhav e
hadt or evisitanyhi storicev aluat ionofKr i
shna’sj udicial‘ acti
v i
sm. ’Onl yt he

17
Iapologizeforthef actthatKrishna’
sco-equaldev ot
iontoSr iSaiBabathusescapesmy
al
li
ter
ati
on!Theabundantr ef
erencest ot
heBuddhi stf
igurekaruna(const
it
uti
onalcompassi
on),
daya(pi
ty),prema(lov
e) ,andmanv tava(humanism)[See,MaruRam v .UnionofIndi
a,(
1981)1
SCC107, 135-36)–totheIndiangenreof‘radi
calhumanism’-defi
nethi
ssyncret
icmixofspi
ri
tual
andsecularethi
c.]
18
Inaninterview withChanchalSar karandme,i nthenow di scont
inuedpubl i
cat on Facet
i ,
Krishnaexplainedt ouswhyhesodeci ded.Althoughnotqui t
eendor si
ngt hepr opagandi
st
maxi mthatIndiraGandhist oodbetween‘ order’and‘chaos,
’Kr
ishna’sbestexplanationr emained
thatjudi
cialpragmat i
cs,nother oi
sm,waspossi blythebestmov eaheadi nthepol i
ticaltur
moil
becausehewasact i
ngasasi ngleJusticeduringt heCourt
’ssummerv acati
onandhedi dremit
themat t
erforfurtherconsiderat
ionbyaconst i
tuti
onalBench.Whil
ef act
ual l
ycorrect
, Iremainun-
persuaded,thenandnow, bythisdefensiveposture.
occur
renceofj
udi
ci
all
uckmayt
henpr
ovi
deahi
stor
icescaper
out
e.

Itr emainst ruenonet helessthatt he‘enemi es’neednotmonopol izet

he
potentialforsubv ersionofconst itut
ional‘democracy .
’‘
Friends’of
tentur
noutto
be‘enemi es’ofdemocr acy:peoples’repr
esent at
ives,fr
equentlyal
soaccompli
sh
thi
swi thr atherastonishingfeli
cit
y!Democr at
icsubv er
sion,theworm’seyeoft
he
repressedpeopl es,isunhappilyalmostasof tenthehandi workoffri
endsaswell
asenemi esof‘ democr acy.
’

Krishnaengagedi nher oicst rugglesf ort het ranscendenceoft heI ndi an

adjudicaturebef oret headv entofahy per-globalizingwor ld, andt heplaceofI ndia
withini t
.Thev erytermsofdi scour set hatconv ey edhi smi ghtyimpacthav enow
almostbecomepol iti
callyincor rect!Friendsandenemi esofdemocr acynowal so
stand gl obalized byf orces ofgl obalpol i
ti
cs,gl obalcapi t
ali
sm,and a new
i
nt ernati
onalmi li
taryor der ,now al r
eadyi nstall
edbyt he‘ waront error.
’New
concept ionsof‘ democr acy’ and‘ goodgov ernance’ arenowf osteredinway st hat
alltooof tenr educet hepl entitudeoft hei deaof‘ democr acy ,
’ev enjeopardi zing
19
theemer gentcul turesofhumanr ightsf ri
endl ygov ernance .Thepr ocesses, and
thepr owessofcont empor aryNor t
hhasf avor edpr ocessesoft heemer gi ng
globaleconomi c const itutionalism ( Gill
,2003;Schnei derman,2000) now
contr i
bute( asmucht heCol dWar )to‘ faileddecol onizat i
on’( asGay atriSpi vak
[1999]nowt ermst his.)Allthisr aisesquest ionsconcer ningt hef utureofKr ishna
j
ur i
sprudent ialendowmenti nagl obalizingI ndia.

How maypost coloni aljudi

cialacti
v ism speak,i fatal l
,tot ransnat i
onal
practicesoft hehegemonassi gni
fyinggl obalmi lit
antdemocr acy?How may
Justiceswor kincl osepar tnershi
pwi ththeant i-global i
zationgl obalci vi
lsoci ety
mov ement ,now f ul
lyinpl ace?Nomat terhowsoev erl abeled,how dot hese
practicesr el
atebot hint ermsofcauseandef fectofwi thin-
nat i
onpr act
icesof
mi l
it
antdemocr acy ?Icannotpur suet hi
st hemeher eexceptt ocr ypticall
yr ecall
with Agamben t hatt he ‘ idea ofi nnersol i
dar i
ty bet ween democr acy and
totali
tariani
sm’at a ‘ historico-
phi
losophi call ev el’mani festsi tsel fint he
potent i
alit
yoft hepol it
icalt hatatoncemakes‘ i
tpossi blebot htopr otectl i
feand
author i
zet hehol ocaust ’( Agamben,1998. )Fur ther ,itisnotent ir
elycl earhow
Krishnahi msel fwoul dhav er espondedt othespeci ficit
yoft he‘poli
ti
cal ’ofhy per-
globalizingIndiai nGl obalSout h,whichconst itutesi tselfasal way si nsurgent .’
No doubt ,his emi nentsuppor t
,upon super annuat i
on,agai nstWTO-TRI PS
agreementcat alyzedact i
v i
stopposi ti
ont odr asticchangesi nt heradi calIndian

19
Highlyindebt edSout hStatesandt hosewhosenat i
onaleconomi esar econti
nual l
yst ructurall
y
adjustedbyi nternationalfi
nanciali
nst i
tutions,aswel last hethr eeimperati
vesofgl obal i
zat i
on
(denationalizati
on,di si
nvestment,andder egulation)quit
eof t
enl eadt omasspr otests,inv i
tinga
substant i
almeasur eofst ater epression.I nsuchSout hsoci et i
es,furt
her,mul t
il
at eralt rade
agreement s such as t he WTO,and NAFTA,ent ai
lobligati
ons t o prot
ectt he r i
ght s oft he
‘
communi t y’ofdirectforei
gni nv
estors,ev enatt hecostofmar ginalizi
ngcivi
landpol i
tical,aswel l
asdemocr aticr i
ghts,ofcit
izens.Ihav edescr i
bedt hi
sel sewhere( Baxi
,2002:132- 166)ast he
emer gentpar adigm oft r
ader el
atedmar ketfriendlyhumanr i
ghtsatoddswi tht hepar adigm of
theUni versal Declarati
onofHumanRi ghts.
PatentAct(now unf ort
unatelyalmostful
lyaccompli
shed.)Butthecomplex
questi
onindeedr emains:How woul dhaveKr i
shnaadjudged,f
rom theHi
gh
Bench,the constit
utionali
ty of t
he vari
ous macroeconomic measur
es of
di
sinvest
ment,denati
onalizat
ion,
andregul
ati
on?

Subal
ter
nVer
susDomi
nantConst
it
uti
onal
i
sm

Onewayt ounder standKr i

shna’scompl exthesesconcer ningthejudicial
roleist osayt hathehaspi oneer edt hedi scourseof( whatIher enameas)
subalt
ernI ndianconsti
tut i
onal ism thatcr y
stalli
zesci t
izenpracticesofr ei
magi ni
g
democr acy,polit
ics,
andt hef ullnessofdemocr at
icciti
zenship.Opposedt othese
arethef or msofdomi nantconst itut
ionali
sm t hatenf orcet heseconcept i
ons
from t
heabov e.Ofcour se, neithernot i
oni smonol i
thi
c; f
ormsofdomi nati
onand
subalt
ernityremai nheterogeneousandt heybecomef l
uidandpor ousinconcrete
hist
ori
calset ti
ngs.Likeal lbinar ycont r
asts,thistooisaneasypr eytotechniques
ofdeconst ruct
ion;allwe may appr oximat e here are Weber ian i
dealt ype
constr
uct s.

Briefl
yput,domi nantl i
beraldemocr aticconst i
tuti
onaltheor yandpr acti
ce
remai npr imari
l
yconcer nedwi ththepowert or ule,it
sscope,andj ustification.I
t
structuresscopef oragencyand choi cef ori ndivi
dualsand gr oupst hrough
l
anguagesofhumanr i
ght sandpr ocedur al
istnotionsofdemocr acy .Itor ganizes
fi
eldsofpower /forcet hatsustainpossi bil
iti
esofdel i
berati
vepol i
ticsar ound
represent ati
veinsti
tuti
onsandpr ocesses,wher et heelectedoff i
cialspl ayakey
roleinpr omotingconcept i
onsof‘ devel
opment ’andnat ionalintegrat i
on/uni t
y
ami dstt heinevit
ableconf l
i
ctsofr ightsandconf l
i
ctsbetweensov er
ei gnpower
anddi ssent i
ngciti
zens.Ci ti
zenshipt husemer ges, i
nl i
vedreali
ty,asaf reedom t o
choosef ormsofsubj ection.

Domi nantconst i
tut
ional i
sm ser ves it
s distincti
ve ends t hrough the
archit
ectur eoft hepower ,whi ch( asCar lSchmi t
tmemor ablyurgedust oalways
recall
)articulat esov erei
gntynotsomuchast hepowert oenunciaterulesbutto
pronouncedeci sionsconcer ningt hest ateofexcept ion.Theul timatechoices
celebrati
ngt her easonofst ateaut hor
izesupr emeexecut ivepowert osuspend
constitut
ional ism i nti
mesofpubl icemer gencyorthroughdepl oy mentofwaror
defensepower ;nor mati
vesuspensi onofconst i
tut
ionalor der
,oftenbey ondthe
arcofef ficaci ousj udici
alr
ev iew powerandpr ocess,isalway swr i
tlargeinthe
theoryandpr act i
ceoft hedomi nantliberalconstit
utionali
sm.Thi sidealtype
descripti
onofdomi nantconst i
tuti
onalism ofcour seal l
owsawhol er angeof
histor
icalv ariation.

Subal
ternconsti
tutionali
sm furni
shesamul t
it
udinousr egi
sterofdi verse
ci
ti
zenpract
ices;i
tabov eal lt
ranscendst hedomi
nantnotionsofconst it
utional
fi
del
it
y.Forwhataconst i
tutionis,andmaymean, ishereamar kofthepr owess
ofci
ti
zenint
erpret
ati
oncl aimingaco- equalaut
hor
it
ati
vestatuswi t
ht he‘off
icial
’
oneandof t
enseekst oov erri
det helatter
.Itof
tenconst i
tutesresist
ancet o
‘
gov er
nance’under domi nant const i
tutionali
sm. The pr act
ices of ci ti
zen
i
nterpretati
onmaybepaci f
icorv i
olent,of t
enadmi t
ti
ngnegot iat
ionbet ween
theset womassi veforms.Paci fi
csubal ternconstitut
ional
istpr acti
ces( PSCP)
usuall
yr espectthemajorpremi sesofr epresentati
onandr ightswov enintothe
fabri
csoft hedomi nantconstitut
ionali
sm ( DC.)Yet ,thedi st
inctionbet ween
pacifi
ci nt
entandv i
olentoutcomesr emai nsaspr oblematicasanyj udgement
concerning democracy rei
nforcing ordest ruct
ive dimensions ofany PSCP
formation,whichIdonotaddressher e.Broadlyput,PSCPatl east:

[1]Constantl
yinterrogat
edomi nantconst i
tut
ional
ism not
ionsofintegri
ty
andtheuni tyofst ateformati
vepr act
ices,andunmaskt hef oundati
onal
and rei
terat
ivev iolence (Der
ri
da,2002)of‘ nat
ion bui
ldi
ng’/‘nati
onal
i
ntegrat
ion’stat
econst it
uti
onalpracti
cesandpr omises

[
2]Pr
obl
emat
izeway
sofi
nst
it
uti
ngbi
opol
i
tics(
Agamben,
1998)

[
3] Arti
culat
er adicalrei
nter
pret
ation of posi
ted vi
sions of r
ight
s,
devel
opment,andjusti
ceandspeaktot hemodesofproducti
onofhuman
ri
ghtl
essnessandseektocombatthis20
21
[
4]Renew andr ei
nforce‘consti
tutionalfai
th’ ;i
nt hi
sev enwhenPSCP
produceoccasionsandbout sofgov ernancel egit
imationdefici
ts,t
hese
remainl egi
bleintermsoft hei
rconst ant
lyv ulnerabil
it
yt ori
sksofco-
optati
onbycompet it
ivepartypolit
icsundert heDCsi gnatur
esremainint
ra
-syst
emi candtendtor ei
nfor
cet heov eral
llogicsandpar alogi
csofDM (or
theBarthesi
anEmpi reofSigns.)

[5]Const i
tute per
for
mances (int he Gramsci an sense) of ‘
passi
ve
revolution;
’thei
rcounterhegemonicprofi
leandpot ent
iali
nnegot i
ati
ng
state,law,poli
cy,andadmini
str
ati
onamel i
orat
ionof t
enendupenhanci ng
22
ther ecalci
tr
anceofdominantconst
it
uti
onali
sm .

Subaltern constit
uti
onali
sm, in i ts differ
ent hi stor
ies, cont
ests
concentrat
ionoflegit
imateforcemonopolyinthestateapparatusesandatti
mes
speakst oanor derofco- equaland l
egit
imate decent
ral
izationofmeansof
vi
olence undert he auspices ofnon-stat
e actors.The circuit
s ofuse and
exchange v alues t
hus entail
ed for
bid any facil
e summat i
on,i nterms of
‘
terr
orism’and‘ st
ateter
rori
sm.’

NoincumbentJusti
ce,
orconstel
l
ati
onsofj
ust
ices,
mayf i
nditpossi
bleto
consi
stent
lyar
ti
culat
et hevaluesand vi
rt
uesofsubalt
ern const
it
uti
onal
ism;
20
Thesepracti
cesofsubalter
nresistancev
aryenormouslyi
nrealli
feoftheactuall
yexist
ing
dominantliber
alconst
it
uti
onali
sms.
21
Tobor r
owani nsi
ghtf
ulphraseregimeofSanfordLevi
nson,1988
22
Notablyavai
labl
etoviewinsomer ecentcri
ti
quesoftherat
eandnat ur
eofcompl iancewi t
hthe
Brownv .BoardofEducati
onandt heassort
edperegri
nati
onofitsnormati
veprogeny ;
ineffect,
effet
eattai
nment sofdi
smant l
i
ngt hepecul
iarf
ormsofAmer i
canf or
msofapar thei
d.
howev er, Kr i
shna’ sper for manceont hesummi tcour texempl i
fiespr eciousl yhow
farj udicialcommi tmentmayser v icesubal ter nconst it
utional ism.Iher ei nv oke
hismany -sidedj ur i
dical andj ur i
dical feats( wi t
houtbur deningt hi scont ri
but ionby
theci tationaldet ails, readi lyav ail
abl ei nschol ar l
ywr iti
ngsal readyi ndi catedt hus
far)Fi
. rst,he enshr ines,i n sev er aldeci sions,democr atizat ion ofaccesst o
j
udici ary,especi all
yt heSupr emeCour t
,asaf undament alhumanr i
ghtf rom
whichal lot herhumanr ight sder ivet heirrational e.Second, hei snotcont entwi th
author izingaccess( whatl awy erscal l‘
standi ng’ )butwi tht her eall ifeat t
ainment
ofjust iceandr ight sor ient edout comes( whatpubl iclawy er scal l‘j
ust i
ciabi l
ity
.’)
Third,whi le submi tting t o col l
egi alj udicialdi sci pli
ne t hatr ender s capi tal
puni shment const it
ut ional lyv ali
d,i nt he ‘ rar est of r are cases, ’Kr i
shna
consi stent lyf av orsi ts commut at ion i ntol ife sent ences;whathe per force
concedesasconst itutional ,heal sof i
ndswayt oev acuatesi tasconst itutional
estat eoft her i
ghtt ol i
f eandl iber ty.Four th,heopensupt hesi tesofmi crof acism
oflocalst at ebyopeni ngupt he‘ Br itishRaj ’pr i
sonsandcust odi ali nst it
ut i
onst o
pract i
cesofav igil
antj udi cialgaze,cont ribut ingt odeci sionalout comest hat
outlaw sol itaryconf i
nement ,andr elat edpr act i
cesofhuman,andhumanr i
ght s,
depr ivationsi ncust odi alinst itut ons.Fi
i fth,hescul ptscar ef ullyt hehumanr ight
tocompensat i
onf orv iol ati
onofhumanr ight s.Si xth, Kri
shnaconst ant l
yabr i
dges
theor igi
nar yconst itutionaldi stancebet weenPar t111( decl ar ingf undament al
ri
ght s)andPar tI V( thei nher ent l
ynon- justiciabl eDi r
ectiv ePr inci plesofSt ate
policy), t
husev err eadyt ousej udicialpowert ot ransl atebasi chumanneedsi nto
fundament alright sandf reedoms.Sev enth,i nal umi nousdeci sion,heaf firms,
evensanct ifi
es,ci ti
zendi scr et i
ont odi sobeymani festl
y‘ il
legal ’st at edeci sions
23
/order s/ act ions.Thedi scour sei nNawabKhanv .St ateofGuj arat asser tsa
cit
izendi sobedi encer ight ,wi t houtanysur eant icipat i
onofj udi cial v
al idation, asa
fundament alhumanr i
ght ,
whi chst rikest henatt her ootofst atear bit rarypower .

Allt
his(andt hisremainsanon- exhausti
veregisterofKrishna’sfecund
j
udicialcreati
vi
ty) signi
fies an extraordinar
yj uri
sgenerati
ve( Cov er
,1987)
potenti
alofsubal t
ern constit
uti
onali
sm i ni t
smor talcombatwi t
hf ormsof
dominantconst i
tut
ionali
sm.I tv ar
iously combat s whata l eading Ghanaian
thi
nkernamesas‘ democr ati
zati
onofdi sempower ment’(Ake,1994.)

I
nLi
euofaConcl
usi
on

No narrati
on concerni
ng Kr ishna’ s exuberantand pr olif
icjudici
aland
j
uridi
calcontri
butiontowardspr acti
cesofr e-
democr atizi
ngIndiamayev ertrul
y
end!Butt hi
smuchi tneedst obesai d:judici
alre-democr ati
zati
onofI ndiav i
a
tr
ansformati
vej udici
alpraxesi s,bynomeans,al i
nearpr ocess.AsRei nhart
Kossell
eck(2000:126- 128)helpsusunder standthe‘ categori
esoft hespaceof
experi
ence and t he hori
zon of expect ati
ons’necessar i
l
y di v
erge int hat
consti
tut
ionalconceptionsofrights,justice,anddev elopmentdi dnotpossesses
atthet i
meoft heircreat
ionmuch‘ contenti ntermsofexper ience’;y
et,these
embodya mov ementi n which ‘[p]olit
icaland soci alconcept s become t he
23
AhmedabadMuni
cipalCor
por
ati
on.NawabKhanGul
abKhan(
1974)SCC121.
navi
gat i
onalinstr
ument s ofthe changing mov ementofhi story
’( p.128.)
Understandi
ng Kr i
shna’
si nsurgentjur
isprudence then i
nvit
es ‘practi
ces of
conceptualhist
ory’
,thosethatconsisti
n‘ t
iminghi st
ori
esspacingconcepts,
’if
onl
y because t hey ‘themselves become f actor
s in the f ormati
on of
consciousnessandcontrolofbehavi
or’(
p.129.)
Ref
erences

Agamben,
Giorgio(1998)HomoSacer:Soverei
gnPowerandBar
eLi
fe(
Stanf
ord,
St
andar
dUniversi
tyPress;Dani
elHel
l
er-Roazentr
ans.
)

Ake,Cl 1994)Democr
aude( ati
zat
ionofDi
sempower
ment(
London,Mal
thouse
Press)

Aust
in,Granvi
ll
e(1999)Wor
kingaDemocr
ati
cConst
it
uti
onal
i
sm (
Del
hi,Oxf
ord
Uni
versi
tyPress)

Baxi
,Upendr a(2003) “‘A KnownButanI ndi
ffer
entJudge’
:Situat
ingRonald
Dworki
ninCont emporaryI
ndianJur
ispr ”1I
udence, CON:Int
ernat
ionalJour
nalof
Consti
tut
ionalLaw557-589

Baxi,Upendra,(2002)TheFutureofHumanRi ghts( Del

hi,Oxford Univer
sity
Press)
;fort
hcomingsecondandrevisededi
ti
on( 2004)
Baxi, Upendra (2000),‘The (Im) possibil
ity of Const i
tut
ional Justice:
Seismographic Not es on Indian Const i
tuti
onali
sm,’i n I ndia’
s Li vi
ng
Consti
tuti
onali
sm 31-63(NewDelhi,Per
manentBl ack;ZoyaHasan, E.Sri
dharan,
R.Sudershaned.)

Baxi
,Upendr
a,(1985)Courage,Cr
aft
,andCont
ent
ion:TheI
ndi
anSupr
emeCour
t
i
nmi d-Ei
ght
ies(Bombay;N.M.Tri
pat
hi)

Baxi
,Upendra(1983)
,‘Judi
cialTerr
ori
sm:Some Ref
lect
ions on Mr
.Just
ice
Tul
zapur
kar
’sPuneSpeech,
’Mainst
ream (
Januar
y1)

Baxi
,Upendra(1983)
,‘ On How Nott o Judge t
he Judges:Not
esTowar
ds
Eval
uat
ionofJudi
ci
alRol
e,Jour
’ naloft
heIndianLawInst
it
ute226

BaxiUpendr 1979)TheI
a,( ndi
anSupr
emeCour
tandPol
i
tics(
Lucknow,East
ern
BookCo)

Cover
,Rober
t(1987)’
For
ewor
d:NomosandNar
rat
iv ’97Har
e, var
dLaw Rev
iew
62

Der
ri
da,Jacques(1994),Scepter
sofMar x:TheStateofdebt
,theWor
kof
Mourni
ng,
andtheNewI nter
nati
onal(
London,
Rout
ledge)

Dhavan,Raji
v,Khurshid,Sal
man,and R.Suder
shan,(
1985)( )Judgesand
Ed.
Judi
cialPower:EssaysinHonorofJust
iceV.R.Kr
ishnaIyer(
London,Sweet&
Maxwell)

Dy
zenhaus,Dav
id( ,TheUni
2004) tyofPubl
i
cLaw (
Oxf
ordandPor
tl
andOr
egon,
Har
tPubl
i
shi
ng)

Gil
lStephen(2003)PowerandResi
stancei
ntheNew Wor
ldOr
der(
London,
Pal
grave/Macmill
an)

Hall
war 2001)Absol
d, ( utel
yPost
col
oni
al:Wr
it
ingBet
weent
heSi
ngul
arandt
he
Speci
fi
c(London,
Routl
edge)

Har
dt,
Michael
andNegr
i,Ant
oni
o,2004)Mul
( ti
tudes(
NewYor
k,Pengui
n)

Hidy
atul
lah,Mohamed (1984)
,‘Hi
ghway
s and By
lanes ofJust
ice,
’(1984)2
SupremeCourtCases(
Jour)1

I
yer,Kr
ishna,(1984)
,‘Democr
acyofJudi
cialRemedi
es,
’(1984)4Supr
emeCour
t
Cases(Jour)43

I
yer
,Venkat
,(2001)Const
it
uti
onalPer
spect
ives(
NewDel
hi:
Uni
ver
sal
,2001

Kennedy
,Duncan(1997)ACr i
ti
queofAdj
udi
cat
ion(
fi
ndesi
ecl
e)(
Cambr
idge,
Mass,Harv
ardUni
versi
tyPr
ess)

Kosel
leck,Rei
nhar
dt(2002)ThePract
iceofConcept
ualHist
ory
:Ti
mingHi
stor
y,
Spaci
ngConcept s(St
anfor
d,Stanf
ordUniver
sit
yPress;ToddSamuelPr
esner
et
.al
.trans.
)

Levinson,Sanf
or 1998)Const
d( it
uti
onalFai
th(
Pri
ncet
on,Pr
incet
onUni
ver
sit
y
Press)

Negr
i,Ant
oni 1999)I
o( nsur
genci
es:Const
it
uti
onalPowerandtheModer
nSt
ate
(
Minnesot
a,Uni
ver
sit
yofMinnesot
aPress;Mazur
izi
aBoscagl
itr
ns.
)

NambyarK.B.(1994)
,‘ Mr
.Jethmal
aniand“
Judi
cialGobbl
edy
gook”‘
(1974)1
Supr
emeCourtCases(Jour
)68

Passav
ant,PaulA.&Dean,Jodi( ,Empi
2004) re’
sNew Cl
othes:Readi
ngHar
dt
andNegri(
London,Rout
ledge)

Sat
he,Satyar
anjan,(2002)Judi
cialAct
ivi
sm inIndi
a:Tr
ansgr
essi
ngBor
derand
Rei
nfor
cingFronti
ers(Delhi
,Oxf
ordUniv
ersit
yPress)

Schnei
der
man,Davi
d(2000)‘Inv
est
mentRul
esandt
heNewConst
it
uti
onal
i
sm,
’
25LawandSoc.Enqui
ry 757

Seer
vai
,H.
M.,
(1979)Const
it
uti
onalLawofI
ndi
a(2ndEdn.Bombay
,N.
M.Tr
ipat
hi)

Shar
ma,
K.M.
,(1981)
,TheJudi
cial
Uni
ver
seofMr
.Just
iceKr
ishnanI
yer
,’
(1981)4
SCC(
Jour
)38

Spiv
ak,Gayat
riChakr
aborty( ,ACr
1999) i
ti
queofPostcol
oni
alReason:Towar
da
Hist
oryofVani
shingPresent(Cambri
dge,Mass.
,Har
vardUni
versi
tyPress)

Swaroop,Hari
(1981)ForWhom t
heLawi
sMade(
VeenaPubl
i
cat
ions,
NewDel
hi,
Tor
ino,I
tal
y,Rother
ham,UK.).

Vadenhol
e,Wouter(
2002)‘HumanRightsLaw,Dev
elopment
,andSoci
alActi
on
Li
ti
gati
onInIndi
a,
’2Asi
a-Paci
fi
cJour
nalonHumanRi ght
sandtheLaw136-
210

Young,Rober 2001)Post
t ( col
oni
ali
sm:An Hi
stor
icalI
ntr
oduct
ion (
Oxf
ord,
Bl
ackwel
l)