In a recent move, the Supreme Court has unveiled a redesigned version of the Lady Justice statue. Unlike the earlier statue, the new one is draped in a saree, which symbolizes cultural inspiration and the freedom from colonial clutches. Additionally, the new version holds a constitution in the left hand, unlike the traditional sword, symbolizing the constitutional values that guide our courts today.
However, one of the most notable features of the newer statue is that Lady Justice is no longer depicted as being blindfolded. This has been done to depict that justice, and in essence, courts, are not actually blind, and neither should they be. However, to what extent is this statement true?
The Evolution of “Lady Justice”
The origin of the “Lady Justice” as seen before the unveiling of this new statue is believed to have been from Roman mythology – the Goddess of Justitia. On the other hand, the origin is also often believed to have been from Themis, the Greek Goddess of justice. It was Greek poet Amiano Marcelino that said, “Vigilavit Iustitiae oculus sempiternus”, meaning “the eternal eye of justice has watched.” However, it is believed that the origins of the iconography of justice comes even before Greek and Roman origins, dating back to 2300 BCE, with Ancient Egypt and their Goddess of Justice and Truth – Ma’at.
Themis was often depicted without a blindfold, much like Justitia and Ma’at. It was widely believed that for Justice to deliver fair judgements, she must see everything. Justice with its eyes open was interpreted by scholars and artists as “das Auge des Gesetzes wacht”, meaning “the eye of the law is watching.” This depiction was meant to inspire reverence and fear in the people towards Justice and Law.
In fact, the very first depiction of Justice with a blindfold dates back to 1494 and was made by Albrecht Dürer. In his book, Justice was tied a blindfold in a place known as “Land of Fools”, where all the fools who had vices were taken. Rather than depicting Justice to be impartial, it was considered to be a critique, depicting the vices of abuse of power and excessive litigation during the renaissance period. Justice was considered to be a fool, one who could not see the inequalities that existed before it, and it was a satire that commented on how corrupt the legal system was. The blindfold on Justice was said to compromise her, showing indifference and social alienation.
This changed in 1549 with the publication of Justice with a blindfold in Wormer Reformation where it was seen as a symbol of secularism and objectivity. The meaning changed to depict that justice must be blind to status and inequalities, and must deliver the correct judgement irrespective of these contingencies. It showed that Justice cannot be swayed or seduced easily, and portrayed a new European order.
In India, it was only during the British rule that the symbol of justice came to be what it was before the unveiling of the new statue. The first Calcutta High Court constructed in 1872 had images of Lady Justice carved into the pillars that were supporting the building. However, these depictions show Lady Justice blindfolded in some places, and with her eyes open in others. In British India, Lady Justice was often used as a way to legitimize the colonialism, because the British were said to have made laws that are impartial and fair.
Should Lady Justice be blind?
The main question that arises is whether, in a post-colonial India,Lady Justice should really be blindfolded Let us view this from two points of view: Firstly, what is the role of Justice in a democracy like India? Must Justice ignore the realities of today and deliver a judgement regardless, or must it view the realities and deliver an equitable judgement?
Secondly, what are the existing legal provisions in India that support the new statue that has been unveiled?
To answer the first question, the role of Justice in India is actually a relationship of the past, present and the future. Any authority claiming to administer Justice must on one hand, view the past critically in the form of written laws or judicial precedents. At the same time, it is essential to consider the present situation, and based on that, reinvent the future with a more modern and equitable judicial order. A figure of Justice that is “blind” may fall behind in modernizing the law to fit the current socio-economic and political realities, but at the same time, a Justice without the blindfold may not be able to apply the pre-existing laws equitably, without bias.
Another existing conundrum appears to be the very issue of how Justice must be comprehended in the first place. Does true Justice mean giving each their rights without consideration of their situations? Or does it mean that the situation of each man must be considered and he must be treated accordingly?
To hold the first view would be very dangerous. Blindly applying provisions of law and judicial precedents on generations at end, without considering the current position and relevance that the law may hold is a deadly end to modernism and development of a country like India. If this is followed, it would mean that the rights of people will not be well-protected for the coming generations. This view reinforces the blindfold perspective of Justice.
On the other hand, to hold the second view would be inappropriate as well. Each person cannot be treated according to his/her circumstances as the case may be. This approach would diminish the power and authority of Justice, because it can be argued that each person always has their own justification for committing an offence or breaking the law. However, it is impossible to ignore the basic ground reality that every judicial decision is bound to be influenced by socio-economic and political factors.
In essence, therefore, this debate on the blindfold appears to be a debate about which of the two faces of law the present Judiciary must consider, much like the two-faced Justice (with reference to the two faced Janus) by Joos Damhouder on the cover of the Praxis Rerum Criminalium. In this image, Justice is depicted as having two faces, the one with the blindfold carrying a scale, and the one without carrying a sword.
This appears to offer a more balanced view of Justice, considering that it must often act both as a protector of the rights of those who need to be seen, and as an equitable judge of the rights of all citizens. Justice without a blindfold carries a sword, implying that Justice sees everything and must take strict action, while the one without carries a scale to depict that even if she does not see, she will treat everyone equally.
Existing Provisions and it’s implications for Justice
Article 14 of the Constitution of India espouses the principle of equality, stating that everyone shall be treated equally before the law. This principle of “equal protection of laws” has been derived from the US Constitution and means that equals must be treated equally. This in itself seems to go against the position that the new statue promotes, but on a closer look, that is not the case.
On a first glance, it may seem that Article 14 of the Constitution of India essentially provides that laws must be applied equally irrespective of the person. However, a deeper interpretation reveals that the principle is “equals must be treated equally”. In essence, even here, law cannot act blindly and must consider whether the two people before it are at an equal footing or not, and only then apply the same law on them.
In fact, Article 15 also espouses similar principles where although it prevents discrimination on grounds of religion, caste, sex, etc. it also allows for positive discrimination. The state can make a reasonable classification (for example, between a higher and lower income group) to provide special benefits for those who need it.
As such, the Constitution of India has from the time of its conception advocated the view of “legal realism”, meaning that Justice and Law cannot act blindly and must consider the realities of the world with eyes wide open.
Conclusion
As Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. has said, “The life of law has not been logic; it has been experience”. This is the view most often upheld today: law and justice are no longer impartial and unfair. In the current scenario especially, it has become more pertinent than ever that Justice sees the truth before it and acts accordingly.
The unveiling of the new Lady Justice statue in India embodies a significant shift in how justice is conceptualized in a post-colonial India today. While impartiality and fairness are crucial pillars of the judicial system, it is equally important for justice to consider the socio-economic contexts and inequalities that shape the lives of individuals. The evolving interpretation of Lady Justice aligns with the principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution, such as Articles 14 and 15, which acknowledge the need for laws to address real-world disparities and uphold equality in substance, not just in form.
This blog is written by Rujuta Bapat, 2nd Year Student.