****He recalls how he joined the service when his father told him that "it was a call of duty." He wonders how many leading lawyers look beyond money and would become judges to give the country a clean, credible judiciary.

AM Ahmadi, after a stint of 33-year Judgeship, has no regrets as he lays down the office of India's Chief Justice. But he is worried because he feels that the system has become an "expediency" and the rule of law a wishful thinking. Things have been allowed to drift. "And what could have been sorted out with a little imagination now demands Herculean efforts." he says. The faith that the founding fathers had placed in the Westminster form of parliamentary democracy has been shaken by the manner it has functioned in the post-Nehru era.

I interviewed Ahmadi two days before his retirement. He was forthright in his observations and commented on subjects ranging from the appointment of judges, judicial activism and public interest litigation, to the press and the aiment on Hinduvta. He is er looking forward to any assignment nor wanting to go back to his home town. Ahmedabad. where he began as a city Judge. He will live in Delhi or around the city, even though a pension of Rs 5.000 a month

will not take him far in the capital or its environs.

"Such are the prospects which deter good lawyers from going to the bench." says Ahmadi. "Those who should be Judges do not accept the position because it is lowly paid," he says. "And those who do not deserve it are in the queue." He believes that the salary of a judge has to be in proportion to his average earnings at the bar. "How much should he sacrifice?" But then he recalls how he joined the service when his father told him that "it was a call of duty. He wonders how many leading lawyers look beyond money and would become Judges to give the country a clean, credible judiciary.

Ahmadi does not believe that the judicial commission is an answer. It can be expanded. Suppose the executive does so at its own choosing, what is Ilie remedy? On the other' hand, he feels that consultations with the executive are necessary to know fully about the person under consideration. "There is the Intelligence Bureau reports and other things." he says.

The primacy of chief justice has to be maintained." he says. "But that does not mean confrontation with the executive." He believes that the primacy of the executive should also be respected. Both should hold consultations so that there is an agreement on the person selected. If the executive is opposed to a particular name, that person should not be appointed. None suspects the American

President nor the Lord Chancellor in Great Britain, who have an exclusive right to appoint Judge. "The Important point is not how you select, but whom you select."

Asked why the appointment of three Judges to the Supreme Court took so long, he says that he had to consult his two senior-most colleagues, as is the procedure. There were differences. It took time to sort them out. "This is bound to happen. All have their own views, he says.

Ahmadi does not raise his voice, nor does he make any uncharitable remark. The interview. for about an hour, was without any invective. We sat in the sitting room, simple, with no loud colour or odd furniture piece. There are a few decorative things but cased In almirahs. One painting hardly hides bare walls.

He does not minimise the role of judicial activism. In fact, it is a writ of mandamus. asking government officers to perform. He is. however, happy that some people have chosen to achieve their objective through the Judiciary. Public Interest cases, he feels, "would have been

wholly unnecessary If the issues were fully discussed in parliament and people were kept informed of developments." He concedes, however, that the phenomena of judicial activism "in its aggressive role" will be temporary one. 'There has been some over-stepping," he admits. "Judges themselves are aware of the fact that the non-elected Judiciary is neither meant nor equipped to act as policy-making oody."

"Great care must be taken to ensure that while the Judges play a participatory role, they do not appear to be entering the arena or give the impression of bias to the opposite party." says Ahmadi. He cites an example of the Kerala High Court where fund was created to kill mosquitoes and where he intervened to have the whole thing wound up. "How can a judge get into a situation where we have , jo keep an account and what note?"

The chief justice is very harsh on the press. He says that it does not check facts and prints 'Ues' which, even when contradicted, are not corrected because the press does not seem to be interested in facts. There is too much comment in the news itself. There is no overall supervision. Every page has an editor. "There was once pyramid now it is a barrel."

Ahmadi does not want to comment on the judgement to define Hinduvta. He has reservations but is reluctant to spell them out. Asked why he did not refer it to the larger bench, he

says that there has to be a system. The chief justice cannot do so on his own. I reminded him of the letter I had written requesting him to constitute a larger bench to consider the judgement which I thought affected the basic structure of the constitution, secularism. He says he did not act "for obvious reasons". "But In a recent Judgement the demand for a larger bench has been made." he says.

"It is Indeed true that, of late, many issues which can be described as socio-political or re-llgio-politlcal or eco-political. are brought to court." says Ahmadi. "Some of them do have far-reaching consequences and affect the social fabric of the nation. Courts have, while trying to steer clear of areas falling within political thickets, not hesitated to exercise jurisdiction in appropriate cases."

He is unhappy over the arrears (30 lakh cases) tn the court. But he blames the state for it. The criminal procedure code has been amended to lay down that the government can appoint honorary magistrates, who need not be even lawyers to hear cases. "I have written per-

sonal letters to chief ministers to point out the provision." says Ahmadi. "But there is very little progress. They are not interested."

Dilating on the role of the Supreme Court, the chief justice said that it was established primarily "for the purpose of being interpreter and the guardian of the many salutary principles that they had enshrined within the constitution." Initially, its role was formulated as a constitutional court. It was only later that the farmers turned their attention to the appellets jurisdiction of th? Supreme Court.

"In recent years, the court has been so heavily burdened with its appellate functions that its role as a constitutional court has suffered greatly." he says. "The pendency of appeals had increased to such an extent that jhe fixing of constitution benches had to be postponed as it was found that when benches of larger strength were in session. the pendency of appeals rose alarmingly."

Ahmadi came up to verandah to say goodbye. He spoke in Urdu as he did many times during the interview. I could now see his face more closely, a face at once sensitive and hardbitten. penetrating and gentle. I inferred during the interview that he was no split personality, no enigma, no contradiction, anomaly or torn allegiance. He has made a great judge but he would have made a greater editor.