By Dr Swati Jindal Garg
The Indian judicial system has long since been characterized by the Lady of Justice- the Nyay Ki Devi as she is also referred to with her flowing robes and the traditional sword in hand coupled with a blindfold across her eyes.
Proving that nothing is more constant in this world than change, in a symbolic shift, a new statue of Nyay Ki Devi has been unveiled at The Supreme Court of India wherein significant changes were brought about by replacing the traditional sword with a copy of The Indian Constitution, removing the blindfold and replacing the flowing robes with the traditional Indian Sari!
The new, six-foot-tall statue placed in the judges’ library is of a saree-clad woman with no blindfold, holding scales and, instead of the sword, a copy of the Constitution of India- “Law is not blind; it sees everyone equally,” Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, who commissioned the statue, said. The new statue has been designed by Vinod Goswami, a muralist who teaches at the College of Art in Delhi.
All these changes effected under the aegis of the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, signify a marked shift that clearly declares that the law of the country is NOT blind and that justice is not merely punitive but also reformative. The change from the flowing robes to the traditional Indian sari also shows a deviation from the colonial mindset and embracing the rich heritage and culture of the country.
The reasoning under which the traditional lady of justice had been blindfolded was to show that all were equal before the law- that it did not differentiate between wealthy and the poor and that the status of the parties was immaterial. The sword on the other hand symbolized both authority, as well as the power to punish. The shedding of the colonial robes in favour of the Indian Sari also go hand in hand with the implementation of the new laws namely the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita that symbolised the shift away from the colonial mindset as was depicted by the colonial-era laws namely the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code.
The concept of Lady Justice is very old, dating back to ancient Greek and Egyptian times. The Lady Justice statue as seen across the world today is usually in the form of a woman who is standing or sitting. She is typically dressed in a toga-like robe, maybe barefoot, and her hair is either flowing over her shoulders or braided in a bun or around her head. She holds a balance, or two-tray scale in one hand and a sword in the other; usually, the scales are in the left hand and the sword in the right, but this is not always so. Sometimes, she also wears a blindfold over her eyes.
Traditionally, Themis, the Greek goddess, represented law, order, and justice, while the Egyptians had Ma’at, who stood for order and carried both a sword and the Feather of Truth. The most direct comparison to the lady of Justice as we see it today, however, is with the Roman goddess of justice, Justitia. The first Roman emperor Augustus (27 BCE-14 CE) introduced the worship of Justice in the form of a goddess known as Justitia (or Iustitia). Justitia, too, like Themis, did not wear a blindfold.
Justice was one of the virtues celebrated by emperor Augustus in his clipeus virtutis, and a temple of Justitia was established in Rome by emperor Tiberius. Justitia became a symbol for the virtue of justice with which every emperor wished to associate his regime; emperor Vespasian minted coins with the image of the goddess seated on a throne called Iustitia Augusta, and many emperors after him used the image of the goddess to proclaim themselves protectors of justice. Though formally called a goddess with her own temple and cult shrine in Rome, it appears that she was from the onset viewed more as an artistic symbolic personification rather than as an actual deity with religious significance. Even though Lady Justice was increasingly associated with Christian values during the mediaeval period, it was only during the Renaissance when the figure became more prevalent in art and architecture. It was also during this time that the statue of the blindfolded woman began appearing in courtrooms and legal texts and became aligned with the ideals of the emerging legal systems.
The scales held by the Lady Justice are typically suspended from one hand, upon which she balances the relative substance and value (i.e. the ‘weight’) of the available evidence and arguments made from both sides of any bilateral dispute. The scales can therefore ‘tip in favour’ of either side, and justice, in terms of the metaphor, can be enacted upon seeing the result.
The blindfold, however, was added only since the 16th century and was originally a satirical addition intended to show Justice as blind to the injustice carried on before her, but it has been reinterpreted over time and is now understood to represent impartiality, the ideal that justice should be applied without regard to wealth, power, or other status.
The first known representation of blind Justice is Hans Gieng‘s 1543 statue on the Gerechtigkeitsbrunnen (Fountain of Justice) in Bern. The Old Bailey courthouse in London however, depicts a statue of Lady Justice sans the blindfold; the courthouse brochures explain that this is because Lady Justice was originally not blindfolded, and because her “maidenly form” is supposed to guarantee her impartiality which renders the blindfold redundant. This was also consistent with the classical interpretation that justice must “see” clearly in order to deliver fair judgements.
The sword, on the other hand, represented authority in ancient times, and conveys the idea that justice can be swift and final. It also symbolizes enforcement and respect and means that justice stands by its decision and ruling and is able to take action. The fact that the sword is unsheathed and very visible is a sign that justice is transparent and is not an implement of fear. A double-edged blade signifies that justice can rule against either of the parties once the evidence has been perused, and it is bound to enforce the ruling as well as protect or defend the innocent party.
The society’s evolving understanding of justice has perhaps been the reason behind the change in the manner in which the lady of justice has been depicted over the period of years.
It can be said that while imbibing the common law principles, the Indian judiciary also adopted the iconography of Lady Justice from the British Raj. Images of Lady Justice were initially carved into the pillars supporting the building at the Calcutta High Court. While the depictions show Lady Justice blindfolded in some cases, her eyes are open in others. The Bombay High Court too, features a statue of Lady Justice at the top of one of its buildings, once again without a blindfold.
The new representation of the Lady Justice inaugurated at the Supreme Court is also very similar to another piece of art featured on the premises which is a mural close to the judges’ entrance . It shows Mahatma Gandhi and Lady Justice on either side of a chakra; Lady Justice in this depiction is wearing a saree, and holding scales and a book instead of a sword.
The replacement of the sword with the Constitution also carries a deep meaning. The sword to the common man has been associated with violence and/or punishment while the Constitution symbolises rights, equality and fairness. This change from the sword to the Constitution can also be said to represent the shift towards emphasising on core values in justice along with highlighting how the judiciary must act as a protector of the Constitutional rights rather than functioning exclusively as a law enforcer. The change made can also be said to signify a march towards reformative justice, something that every society ultimately aspires for.
All said and done, the robes might have been replaced by the sari and the sword by the book, the blindfold too might have disappeared, but the omnipresent scales still hold their place……the scales of justice- forever representing that a court needs to find the correct balance between the weight of evidence and the arguments placed from both the sides that come before it!
—The author is an Advocate-on-Record practising in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi