It has always been evident that the eye-popping pile-up of cases in our courts was not on account of the fact that judges have been slothful, but because of the disheartening fact that the judges have
It has always been evident that the eye-popping pile-up of cases in our courts was not on account of the fact that judges have been slothful, but because of the disheartening fact that the judges have been way too few — from the bottom of the ladder right up to the Supreme Court.
It needed the Chief Justice of India, T.S. Thakur, to point out to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday that when judges go on vacation, they utilise much of their time away from the madding crowds writing judgments.
The CJI was constrained to note this after the PM, in a short intervention at the conference of SC and HC judges with chief ministers, suggested that judges cut down their vacation time and otherwise work longer hours even as he invited the top judiciary for a dialogue to discuss the way forward in appointing judges of constitutional courts.
It was hard to miss the superior managerial tone of Mr Modi when he spoke to an audience of judges of the higher judiciary. Though he was not scheduled to speak, the PM took to the rostrum after the CJI had held back tears while noting that democracy would suffer if judges’ vacancies were not filled up quickly. Mr Modi did not permit this emotional interlude to come in the way of delivering his admonition to the head of the nation’s judiciary.
It also became clear that Mr Thakur, for all his urbaneness, would not permit the head of government’s misconceived remarks to go unchallenged. It is good for the country that the judiciary did not bend like a bough in the strong breeze of the PM’s all too apparent — and uncalled for — rebuke.
The CJI pointed out, with the Prime Minister in the audience, that there were only 18,000 judges in the country and as many as three crore pending cases. In 1987, the Law Commission had recommended 50 judges for every 10 lakh of population, but 30 years down the road there were only a third of that recommended number.
Many high courts are functioning at half their strength but the government is sitting over 170 appointments recommended by the judges collegium, quite clearly because the government is warring with the judiciary on the procedure to appoint judges. The National Judicial Appointments Commission, proposed by the government, has not found favour with the judiciary and also some of the most esteemed constitutional experts in the country as it makes the government’s hand in appointments heavier.
A via media must be found early since it is not a good practice for judges to appoint judges, as is the case now, since this breeds cronyism. Perhaps the appointments procedure should be weighted in favour of independent experts sitting among judges and government’s representatives.
