Justice with open eyes: A Question of impartiality

The Supreme Court has unveiled a new Justice statue without a blindfold or sword, calling it ‘Justice with open eyes’.

While replacing the sword with the Constitution is a positive shift, removing the blindfold doesn’t seem right, this is my personal opinion.

The blindfold symbolized impartiality, not blindness. It signified that justice is delivered without bias or prejudice, blind to a person’s identity or background.

It’s being labeled as ‘colonial’, much like the IPC, which was framed by Lord Macaulay. The term ‘colonial’ used merely because these things originated during the British period. What exactly was wrong with the Indian Penal Code beyond its colonial origins? It has served Indian society for more than 150 years and has been adapted to suit modern society and jurisprudence. Just because a law has colonial origins doesn’t mean it is flawed. The argument against the IPC being colonial lacks substance.

If the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is free from colonial ties, why does it retain the definitions and legal concepts of the IPC while simply reshuffling the sections? Clearly, there was no fundamental flaw with the IPC.

Now, with this open-eyed statue, justice will be able to see your caste, religion, race, language, gender, social background, wealth, and status before serving its decision. This contradicts the foundational principle that ‘Justice is blind’, which means that justice should be impartial and free from external influences.

The phrase ‘Justice is blind’ is being interpreted literally, undermining its real meaning that ‘Justice is impartial’.

Justice should remain uninfluenced: Blind to bias, open to truth.