Aesthetics of Jurisprudence, its relation with Satyam, Shivam, Sundaram and Justice

Advocate for Justice organised a discussion on "Aesthetics of Jurisprudence" (न्याय शास्त्र का सौंदर्यबोध) at Patna High Court on May 14, 2026 in the evening hours. The discussion was  moderated by Advocate-poet Ranjit Verma who has authored anthology of poems like पीछे न छोड़ते निशान (2002), एक चुप के साथ (2010), लकीर कहीं एक खिंचनी होगी आपको (2015), यह रक्त से भरा समय है (2022), मुझे तुम वहाँ ढूँढो (2025), wrote बलात्कार और क़ानून (2007) and has edited प्रतिरोध का पक्ष (2016) and  प्रतिरोध में कविता (2021). In his opening remarks, Verma observed, "sense of justice is linked with class consciousness. Its meaning is dependent on one's class location." He invited Dr. Gopal Krishna, an advocate and researcher of law, philosophy and mass communication to introduce the subject of the discussion.  Introducing the subject, Dr. Krishna, recalled the significance of Satyam Shivam Sundaram. The excerpts from his presentation are reproduced: Satyam refers to what "is". Shivam refers to all that is good. Sundaram refers to flowering of pure consciousness. He referred to the judgement dated October 26, 1979 by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer of the Supreme Court of India in Raj Kapoor & Ors. vs. State, wherein the Court observed:"Surely, the satwa of society must rise progressively if mankind is to move towards its timeless destiny and this can be guaranteed only if the ultimate value-vision is rooted in the unchanging basics, Truth-Goodness-Beauty, Satyam, Shivam, Sundaram." Satyam, Shivam, Sundaram was also one of the movies by Raj Kapoor, the legendry filmmaker. The conception of beauty in Natya Shastra, the fifth Veda by Bharat Muni underlines that beauty is aligned with rasa, essence and bhava, feeling. The observation of the Supreme Court in Jasraj Inder Singh vs. Hemraj Multanchand (1977), wherein, the Court said,"Truth like song, is whole and half-truth can be noise. Justice is truth, is beauty and the strategy of healing injustice is discovery of the whole truth" makes it amply clear that there is a relationship between sense of beauty, goodness and justice.  The ugly judgements of US and Indian Supreme Courts illustrate poverty of sense of beauty. The infamous decision of the US Supreme Court in Dred Scott vs. John Sandford (1857), wherein, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that enslaved people were not citizens of the USA. Therefore, they could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. It also stated that US legislature had no authority to ban slavery from a federal territory. The notorious decisions of U.S. Supreme Court in Buck vs. Bell (1927), in which, it had upheld the constitutionality of forced sterilization laws for individuals deemed "genetically unfit". The 8-1 decision endorsed the eugenics movement in the USA.

These ugly and notorious decisions have been cited in the Indian Supreme Court's judgement in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017), the Aadhaar Number Online Database related case with strong disapproval.  

Referring to the ugliest decision of the Supreme Court of India in ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207, Dr. Krishna pointed out that the 9-Judge Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) overruled its 1976 judgment, wherein, the Court observed:"In IR Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu, this Court took the view that ADM Jabalpur has been impliedly overruled by various subsequent decisions. We now expressly do so.” In his concurring opinion as part of the 9-Judge Bench, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed: “I fully agree with the view expressly overruling the ADM Jabalpur case which was an aberration in the constitutional jurisprudence of our country and the desirability of burying the majority opinion ten fathoms deep, with no chance of resurrection.” In the ADM Jabalpur case, the Court had grappled with the question as to whether individuals who had been preventively detained by the State had the right to approach the Courts in a habeas corpus petition. The Court held that when there was Presidential proclamation of a State of Emergency, it suspended the right of all individuals to move the Courts for legal remedy, if case they were detained. The Supreme Court by majority held that the Presidential Proclamation had validly suspended the remedy of habeas corpus under the Constitution. The Presidential Proclamation acted as a complete bar to exercising the fundamental right to life and liberty. A detained person was denied the right to approach the Courts on the ground that his detention was illegal or unconstitutional. The utter lack of sense of beauty and justice among the authors of the judgement, make it a text book lesson on how not to write judgements. 

Diotima, the lady teacher of Socrates had taught beauty and justice to him. Her lesson was that there cannot be any sense of justice without a sense of beauty. Our first introduction to good and bad and right and wrong is not based on statutes and ethics. It is based on sense of ephemeral and transcendental beauty imparted to us by mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, relatives of myriad shades and friends of all hues.  

In Om Prakash vs. Union of India 2025 INSC 43, Justice M.M. Sundresh observed:"Truth is the foundation of justice." He added:"Justice is nothing but a manifestation of truth." It has been held that "The Court is a search engine of truth, with procedural and substantive laws as its tools."

When advocates and judges read the silence of the constitution and statutes, they hear what has not been said. They read what is not written. Such hearing and reading is possible only when there is a sense of truth, goodness and justice. 

Commenting on the presentation by Dr. Krishna, veteran advocate Jnan Chandra Bhardwaj said, nature of truth changes with the passage of time. Advocate Jaishankar Singh, General secretary, Advocates Association underlined the significance of inner beauty which gets missed by those obsessed with external beauty. Advocate Rahman said, "when truthful person speaks, one can get a glimpse of truth. Institutions like judiciary too can become beautiful. There is no beauty in unilateralism." Snehlata, a student of law dwelt on the connection between beauty, truth and justice. She raised the question about superficiality of judgements. Advocate Mumtaz Uddin emphasized that truth is universal and unchanging. Justice can be beautiful.

 

Responding to these observations, Dr. Krishna expressed his agreement with most of the insights shared by the discussants. He asserted that truth is eternal. Non-reasoned orders and judgements are ugly. Their authors seems to be devoid of sense of truth, justice and beauty. Referring to ugly laws and decisions, he cited a decision by Justice I.A. Ansari, who later became the 39th chief justice of Patna High Court, Dr. Krishna recalled the issue of Supreme Court's unreasoned stay order on the 89-page long reasoned judgement dated November 6, 2013 by Justice Ansari as part of Gauhati High Court's Division Bench comprising of Justice Dr. (Mrs.) Indira  Shah in Navendra Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr. (2013). Justice Ansari has held that the resolution of the Ministry of Home Affairs, which constituted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), is non est in law. The High Court also held that the resolution was not traceable to Section 2 of Delhi Special Police Establishment (DPSE) Act, 1946, which empowers the union government to constitute a special police force for a union territory. In any case the Parliament did not have any legislative competence to constitute a police force, traceable to Entry 8 and Entry 80 of List I of the Constitution of India. The creation of CBI through a notification cannot be constitutionally justified. But the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the judgment. It has not been able hear the case since then.  

 

Dr. Krishna observed that as a consequence such indulgence and deference towards the Union Executive, the Union of India has enacted several laws which empowers it to investigate and prosecute for penal offences although the Constitution of India does not permit the Union to create institutions to carry out investigation outside the territorial limit of union territory. Law and order is a State subject, not a subject of the Union under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. It is the primary duty of the State Governments to prevent, detect, register and investigate crime and prosecute the criminals. The sweeping investigative powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or BNSS can only be granted by a formal legislative statute, making the executive resolution regarding creation of CBI ultra vires. 

 

 Dr.Krishna pointed out that because the unconstitutionality of CBI remained uncontested for long, National Security Ordinance was promulgated on September 23, 1980 and the National Security Act (NSA) became a permanent part of law from December 27, 1980 and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008 was enacted to set up the NIA as the nation’s first apex agency to investigate and prosecute offences related to terrorism. The constitutionality of the NSA was challenged in A.K. Roy vs. Union of India (1981) on the ground that it is a draconian law that places arbitrary and excessive powers in the hands of the executive. The petitioner thus contended that the Act was violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution without success. The NIA Act was amended in 2019 amendment to expand the ambit of the law to offences such as human trafficking, manufacture and sale of prohibited arms, cyber-terrorism and others. Besides these the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 too was amended in 2019 to bestow power to NIA officers to conduct raids and seize properties of suspected terrorists although several of its provisions contravene many articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The primary aim of the NIA was to assist State police in terror cases and maintain law and order. It is clear that NIA has taken charge of the working of State police for certain crimes in breach of the constitutional provision. Section 3(1) of the NIA Act establishes a police force to investigate offences. Section 6 gives it suo moto power to take up cases without any prior consent of the State in any part of India. NIA has been empowered to investigate offences which come under Scheduled offences of the Act. Section 6(6) directs that if any direction is given under the sections mentioned above, then state police shall not proceed with the investigation and transmit the case to NIA. Section 7 and 9 of the Act gives NIA the discretion to decide when to take assistance from state police and when to transfer the case to the State police. These provisions encroach upon the constitutional rights of the State. It is not surprising that the Chhattisgarh government filed a petition in the Supreme Court contending that NIA is constitutionally invalid and its enactment goes beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament. On April 21, 2026, Supreme Court issued notice after admitting a PIL challenging the NIA law as arbitrary, lacking in legislative competence and an encroachment on state power. 

 

 Can several wrongs transform wrongs like CBI, NSA and NIA into a right? Will a day come when the Court will have the philosophical and jurisprudential will and courage to pass a reasoned order, either to vacate it's stay order or to uphold the reasoned judgement by Justice Ansari? The fact is that the stay order is as ugly as the Court's judgment in ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla (1976), Dred Scott vs. John Sandford (1857),  and Buck vs. Bell (1927).

The discussion was chaired by senior advocate Yogesh Chandra Verma, member, Bihar State Bar Council and president, Advocates Association. Speaking on the occasion, he said, justice refers to a keen sense of fairness and truthfulness. But courts are unable to reach truth. What is approved by the majority may appear to be justice but unless everyone is taken along, the quest for real truth and justice will remain unfulfilled. Advocates Neeraj Kumar, Dr. Raja Ram Rai, Ugresh Kumar, Bhubneshwar Mahto, Amit Maharaj, Rajeev Ranjan, Tanay Bhaskar, Arvind Singh, Najmal Hoda and Rahamatullah and several other advocates graced the occasion. Advocate-poet Ranjit Verma concluded the discussion after sharing details about Advocate for Justice and the future initiatives of the forum.