The statue, a six-foot-tall sculpture dressed in traditional white attire, carries scales in one hand and the Constitution in the other, replacing the sword that is typically associated with swift and decisive justice. The absence of the blindfold, often seen as a symbol of unbiased justice, has drawn criticism from legal experts who believe it could undermine the symbolism of impartiality. Senior advocates and prominent members of bar associations have expressed their disapproval of the statue's design, suggesting that it introduces "radical changes" that do not align with the established global iconography of justice.
The change was met with mixed reactions from various quarters. Some, including senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, downplayed the significance of the alterations. He pointed out that the absence of the blindfold does not imply a shift in how justice is delivered, but rather emphasizes that justice should be aware of societal realities while remaining immune to biases and prejudices. However, he acknowledged the debate around the symbol's new form and its implications.
On the other hand, many in the legal fraternity, particularly within the Supreme Court Bar Association, voiced their concerns. Critics argue that removing the blindfold from Lady Justice could imply a judicial system that is too influenced by external factors, potentially compromising its impartiality. They also question the decision to replace the sword, which symbolizes the enforcement of laws and authority, with the Constitution. These critics argue that while the Constitution is paramount, the absence of the sword dilutes the traditional representation of judicial power.
Several senior advocates have weighed in on this issue, with some welcoming the statue’s attempt to embody Indian values while still respecting global traditions. One such advocate, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, pointed out that the statue reflects an ‘Indianness’ in its design, which could be seen as a positive step toward representing the Indian judicial system. However, he also noted that the changes will likely stir debate on how the judiciary views itself in terms of both power and neutrality.
The statue has also brought to light broader concerns about the evolving identity of the judiciary in India. Some legal commentators view this as part of a larger pattern of symbolic changes being made to reflect a more Indian ethos within the country's legal framework. These changes have provoked discussions on whether the judiciary is straying from universally recognized symbols of justice or merely localizing these symbols to better resonate with Indian sensibilities.