JUDGMENT

Bhagwati, J.

(1) THESE Writ Petition filed in different High Courts and transferred to this Court under Article 139-A of the Constitution raise issues of great constitutional importance affecting the independence of the judiciary and they have been argued at great length before us. The arguments have occupied as many as thirty-five days and they have ranged over a large number of issues comprising every imaginable aspect of the judicial institution. Voluminous written submissions have been filed before us which reflect the enormous industry and vast erudition of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and a large number of authorities, Indian as well as foreign, have been brought to our attention. We must acknowledge with gratitude our indebtedness to the learned counsel for the great assistance they have rendered to us in the delicate and difficult task of adjudicating upon highly sensitive issues arising in these Writ Petition. We find, and this is not unusual in cases of this kind, that a considerable amount of passion has been injected into the arguments on both sides and some times passion may appear to lend strength to an argument, but, sitting as Judges, we have to be careful to see that passion does not blind us to logic and predilections pervert proper interpretation of the constitutional provisions. We have to examine the arguments objectively and dispassionately without being swayed by populist approach or sentimental appeal. It is very easy for the human mind to find justification for a conclusion which accords with the dictates of emotion. Reason is a ready enough advocate for the decision one, consciously or unconsciously, desires to reach. I will recall the brilliant fling of Shri Aurobindo in his poem "Savitri" :

AN inconclusive play is Reasons toil; Each strong idea can use her as its tool; Accepting every brief she pleads her case, Open to every thought she cannot know.

We have therefore to rid our minds of any preconceived notions or ideas and interpret the Constitution as it is and not as we think it ought to be. We can always find some reason for bending the language of the Constitution to our will, if we want, but that would be rewriting the Constitution in the guise of interpretation. We must also remember that the Constitution is an organic instrument intended to endure and its provisions must be interpreted having regard to the constitutional objectives and goals and not in the light of how a particular government may be acting at a given point of time. Judicial response to the problem of constitutional interpretation must not suffer from the fault of emotionalism or sentimentalism which is likely to cloud the vision when judges are confronted with issues of momentous importance. We must constantly bear in mind the famous words of Holmes, J. in Northern Securities Co. v. U. S. where that great illustrious Judge said :

GREAT cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their real importance in shaping the law of the future, but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment. These immediate interests exercise a kind of hydraulic pressure which makes what previously was clear seem doubtful, and before which even wellsettled principles of law will bend.

With these prefatory word? we may now proceed to state the facts of these writ petitions. We propose to take up these Writ Petition in a slightly different order than that given in the cause-title.

(2) THE first writ petition is that filed by lqbal Chagla and others in the High Court of Bombay. The petitioners in this writ petition are advocates practising ,in the High Court of Bombay and they have challenged a circular letter dated 18/03/1981, addressed by Shri Shiv Shankar, the Law Minister of the government of India, to the governor of Punjab and the Chief Ministers of the other States. Since t