The unveiling at the Supreme Court on October 15 of a modified statue of Lady Justice, stripped of her blindfold and sword, represents a concerning departure from the universal principles of justice under the guise of decolonisation.
The symbolism of Lady Justice is not a colonial imposition. Rather, it is a representation of judicial principles that have resonated across civilisations. Her origins can be traced back to the ancient Egyptian goddess Maat and the Greek goddess Themis. The Romans later depicted her as Justitia, incorporating elements that would evolve into the familiar figure recognisable today.
The removal of the blindfold, in particular, raises serious concerns about the message this conveys about judicial impartiality. The blindfold was never meant to suggest that justice is blind in the sense of being unaware or ignorant. Rather, it symbolises the fundamental principle that justice must be administered without regard to the social status, wealth, or political influence of those seeking it.
To say justice is blind, means it sees all individuals as equal before the law – a principle enshrined in Article 14 of India’s Constitution.
Instead, does it now suggest that courts should now take into account who stands before them? That the administration of justice should be influenced by considerations beyond the facts and the law? This symbolic change could be interpreted as a tacit acknowledgment that the justice system may treat individuals differently based on their identity or status.
The replacement of the sword with the Constitution, while seemingly progressive, also raises philosophical concerns. The sword in Lady Justice’s hand never represented punitive justice alone: it symbolised the authority and power of the law to enforce its decisions.
Without this symbol of enforcement, what remains is a justice system that may pronounce judgments but lacks the symbolic representation of its power to ensure compliance. The Constitution, while undoubtedly the supreme law of our land, is a document of principles and rights – it does not, in itself, represent an enforcement mechanism.
This modification appears to conflate anti-colonialism with the rejection of universal principles. Ironically, the principles represented by the traditional Lady Justice – equality before the law, impartial judgement and the power to enforce justice – were often invoked by independence movements against colonial powers. These principles are not colonial impositions but universal aspirations that have been embraced by societies seeking to establish just and equitable legal systems.
The argument that this change reflects a “new India” is particularly problematic. What exactly is being suggested about this new vision of justice? That it will be administered with eyes wide open to the party that stands before the court? That enforcement of judgements is secondary to constitutional principles? These implications run counter to the progressive justice system India should be striving to build.
The modification of Lady Justice also raises questions about the approach to decolonisation. True decolonisation involves critically examining and rejecting harmful colonial impositions while retaining and reinforcing universal principles that promote justice and equality. By rejecting the blindfold and sword simply because they are associated with a colonial-era representation, we risk throwing out fundamental principles of justice in our haste to assert independence.
As we move forward, it is crucial to remember that symbols matter. They shape public perception and understanding of our institutions. The traditional Lady Justice, with her blindfold and sword, represented not colonial oppression but the highest aspirations of any justice system – equal treatment under law, impartial judgement and the power to enforce justice. In modifying these symbols, we may inadvertently be signalling a retreat from these essential principles.
The focus should be on ensuring that the justice system truly embodies the principles Lady Justice represents – principles that are not colonial relics but universal aspirations that are as relevant today as they were millennia ago.
Karanveer Singh is an advocate and founder of South Asian Law Chambers.
Buy an annual Scroll Membership to support independent journalism and get special benefits.
Our journalism is for everyone. But you can get special privileges by buying an annual Scroll Membership. Sign up today!