Supreme Court Bar Association expressed strong objection to the ‘unilateral’ decision to remove the blindfold from the goddess of justice.

New Delhi : The Supreme Court Bar Association has objected to the ‘unilateral change’ in the logo of the Goddess of Justice and the court in the Supreme Court. The executive committee under the chairmanship of SCBA President Kapil Sibal appointed CJI D.Y. The apex court has expressed displeasure over the ‘unilateral’ changes made by the administration under the leadership of Chandrachud. The SCBA has also opposed the proposed museum and demanded a library and café. According to Bar & Bench report, the Supreme Court Bar Association, in its resolution passed on October 22, said, ‘The Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association observed That recently some radical changes have been made unilaterally by the Supreme Court like changing its logo, changing the statue of the Goddess of Justice without consultation with the Bar. We are equal stakeholders in the administration of justice, but when these changes were proposed, they were never brought to our attention. We are completely unaware of the rationale behind these changes. The bar body said it was ‘unaware’ of the reasoning behind the changes.

Earlier last month, President Draupadi Murmu had unveiled the new flag and emblem of the Supreme Court at the two-day National Conference of District Judiciaries in New Delhi. The new flag features symbols of India’s legal and cultural heritage: the Ashoka Chakra, the Supreme Court building and the Constitution of India. The new flag of the Supreme Court is blue. The insignia bears the inscription ‘Supreme Court of India’ and ‘Yato Dharmastāto Jaiḥ’ (in Devanagari script).

CJI Chandrachud had also unveiled the statue of the ‘Goddess of Justice’ in the Supreme Court complex which replaced the ‘original Lady Justice’. The new idol is wearing a saree and is not blindfolded. The Goddess of Justice has scales in one hand and the Indian Constitution in the other.

The Supreme Court Bar Association, in its proposal, has also expressed objection to the proposal of a museum in the library of former judges. The bar had requested to build a café and library.

The proposal states, ‘While we had demanded a library, café cum lounge for the members of the Bar as the present cafeteria is inadequate to meet the needs of the members of the Bar. We are concerned that despite the objections we raised against the proposed museum in the library of former judges, work for the museum has started.