Just when everyone thought Rahul Gandhi and his lawyer-lieutenants had scored a self-goal for the Congress Party, here comes the equaliser from the Bharatiya Janata Party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi through - you guessed it - another self-goal!
The Congress had painted itself into a corner by seeking to impeach the chief justice of India (CJI) Dipak Mishra, a move that was summarily dismissed by Rajya Sabha chairman Venkaiah Naidu. There is much hand-wringing within the Congress itself for an ill-advised move against one of the most respected institutions of democracy.
And that’s not all, some of the so-called “partners in crime” are also said to be feeling much less elated about the misadventure than before after editorials and political and legal commentators came down hard on the myopic move. This was further bolstered by West Bengal chief minister and Trinamool Congress Party (TCP) supremo who openly criticised Rahul saying she had warned him not to indulge in petty point-scoring by damaging the reputation of a constitutional authority.
Kapil Sibal, former minister and the Congress Party’s chief legal luminary behind the impeachment move, had held a press conference within minutes of Naidu rejecting the petition to tell the nation that the petitioners would soon approach the Supreme Court itself to declare the Rajya Sabha chair’s decision illegal.
That was a week ago and till the time of writing this column nothing seems to have moved on that front, at least publicly. Perhaps even Rahul Gandhi has realised his folly. Some of the big names missing in the list of signatories to that petition included former prime minister Manmohan Singh, former finance minister Palaniappan Chidambaram and former law ministers Salma Khurshid and Ashwani Kumar.
Of this, Singh’s was perhaps the most important and Sibal was at pains to explain that the party did not want him to sign as he continues to occupy an exalted position as former prime minister. But the truth is something different. 
Sibal, or his co-petitioners, had approached Singh more than a month ago and the senior politician had declined to play ball saying such a move was uncalled for.
So, all in all, the Congress Party was hoist with its own petard. The injury would have taken a long time to heal and this could have come in handy for the BJP, especially in an election year. This was such a good opportunity for Modi and his party chief Amit Shah to twist the knife further into Rahul’s belly, figuratively speaking of course.
But to do that your own hand should be strong and steady. Otherwise the knife could well end up in your own belly! Curiously, that’s exactly what has happened!
By delaying the appointment of Justice Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph, or K M Joseph as he is known, as a judge of the Supreme Court the Modi government has played into the hands of the opposition in more ways than one. At a time when the entire nation is agog with speculation on the independence, or the lack of it, of the judiciary, it was most important for the government to allay any such fears in the minds of the people. The dictum “justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done” does not pertain only to the law courts. Anyone in position of power must observe it, a federal government with absolute majority must be in the forefront holding it up.
Instead, in what is seen as a foolish, childish way of settling scores, the Modi government separated a Supreme Court recommendation for appointment of two judges, approved one and sent the other one back to the court for reconsideration. 
Indu Malhotra, who was duly sworn in as the 26th judge of India’s highest court last Friday, also became the first woman to be inducted from the bar. She would probably have been only the 27th had justice Joseph made the grade.
Unless there is something that the government does not want the country to know for reasons of security or even personal integrity, the arguments trotted out by the government to withhold justice Joseph’s elevation are specious and silly. As eminent jurist Fali Nariman pointed out, everything cannot be made public in every case because sometimes reputations could be damaged beyond repair.
Anyway, all that the government has cited as reasons for its reluctance to appoint justice Joseph can in no way be considered threatening to the personal integrity of the learned judge. You will know at the very first reading that the reasons are trivial.
For example, one of the reasons cited is that regional representation will get skewed if justice Joseph was to be elevated because that will make two from a small state like Kerala - justice Kurien Joseph is already a judge in the apex court - whereas some larger states, Rajasthan for instance, are unrepresented or under-represented. If it had bothered to check the records, the government would have realised that at one time there were as many as three judges from Kerala in the Supreme Court.
The excuse that there are 42 other high court judges senior to justice K M Joseph also sounds hollow because several judges of the present Supreme Court are junior in age and service to many of these 42 high court judges. 
While age, experience and seniority are all matters to be considered, the deciding factor has always been merit and justice K M Joseph is most deserving on that score. The collegium of judges that decided to recommend justice Joseph had done so after much deliberation and for the government to come up with puerile arguments of this nature can only mean there is something that the powers that be are not telling us.
The Congress Party says the reason for keeping justice Joseph out is as clear as the midsummer sky. In 2016 justice Joseph had overruled the Modi government’s attempt to impose President’s Rule in Uttarakhand where he is the chief justice of state high court. It had resulted in a major loss of face for Modi. The Congress maintains that Modi is now taking his revenge on the judge even as he is trying to send a message to other judges in the higher courts that it pays to be on the right side of the prime minister.
Can this be true? Can a prime minister stoop to such levels as to interfere in the professional career of a high judicial officer just because he lost a case?
Then there are those who feel Modi is unhappy with the entire selection process of judges but his hands are tied because in 2015 the apex court had struck down the Act passed by both houses of parliament to establish the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) which would have ended the authority of the five-judge collegium.
Again, the question is: can this be true? It is generally agreed that the collegium’s performance has left a lot to be desired. But what is the guarantee that the NJAC would set everything right?
Finding the right method to pick high judiciary is an onerous, cumbersome task that requires immense patience. It is bound to take years and even decades. Just because you have the majority in parliament does not mean you ride rough shod over established conventions and institutions. Is Modi really the authoritarian monster that the opposition is making him out to be? Will he sacrifice all that goodwill from across the world for such narrow ends? Will the self-goal mark the beginning of end of Modi as a democrat?
It will surely take more than delay in one judicial appointment to draw such foreboding conclusions. After all, the collegium is set to meet today and it can very well reiterate the recommendation for justice Joseph’s appointment and the government will be left with no choice. But Modi can longer charge the Congress with attempting to destroy the judiciary through impeachment when he himself is equally guilty of being too clever by half.