Subscribe for perks & to support LI

Your Interests & Preferences: Personalise your reading

Which best describes your role and/or interests?

I work in a law firm
I work for a company / in-house
I'm a litigator at the bar
I'm a law student
Aspiring law student
Other
Save setting
Or click here to show more preferences...

I am interested in the following types of stories (uncheck to hide from frontpage)

Firms / In-House
Deals
Courts
Legal Education

Always show me: (overrides the above)

Exclusives & Editor's Picks

Website Look & Feel

Light Text on Dark Background

Save preferences


Note: Your preferences will be saved in your browser. You can always change your settings by clicking the Your Preferences button at the top of every page.

Reset preferences to defaults?

Unprecedented crisis sparks luminary press for lawyers to take judicial appointments mandate away from judiciary

BAI brainstorms judges shortage problemBAI brainstorms judges shortage problem

Senior advocate JP Cama called for a mandamus to bulldoze the process of judicial appointments and prevent judicial vacancy of nearly 45% at the Supreme Court, which is expected in the next 11 months.

Cama was speaking at yesterday’s session on an acute shortage of judges at the inauguration of the three-day "rule of law convention - 2018 on judicial reforms” organised in Delhi by the Bar Association of India (BAI).

Cama took note of the case of the Supreme Court where six judicial vacancies were pending and seven more judges are due to retire by December 2018.

All that is against a backdrop of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for appointment of judges still not being in force, Cama said, noting that the bar cannot afford to wait for the MoP. The Bar should seek the relief of mandamus to make judicial nominations from among members of the bar and send those nominations to the president of India to sign off on them and appoint new judges, he argued.

++1079 vacancies, 3000+ interested candidates

There are currently 1079 empty judicial posts across India’s 24 high courts, with seven high courts functioning with 50% judicial strength and nine high courts functioning with acting chief justices instead of regular chief justices.

Cama said that his sources in various high courts and the Supreme Court have told him that for every judicial vacancy in the higher judiciary there are around 300 interested candidates who come forth wishing to take the post.

He argued that if those 300 candidates are not fit to become judges, the bench must use the period before scheduled retirement of judges to train and prepare the interested candidates for judicial office.

He also asserted that the judiciary should do away with the system of only nominating chief justices of various high courts as judges of the Supreme Court.

Becoming the chief justice of a high court in India is based on the seniority of a judge according to the date on which he was appointed a judge of the high court, whereas Supreme Court appointments should be based on "highest intelligence” alone, he said.

Right to justice last priority

"It is probably entirely intentional [on the part of the government] because they are the biggest litigator in the courts of our country so they have a vested interest in not running an active and vibrant judiciary,” Cama remarked.

He said that the infrastructure in one particular appellate court is so abysmal that judges are not even provided court rooms and have to resort to hearing cases in their cars, with litigants sitting on seats in the rear of the car and the judges up front.

Supreme Court advocate Priya Hingorani, also on the panel, pointed out how judges in certain courts are known to retire for the day within 10 minutes of the first hearing as the government has failed to provide them basic infrastructure such as stenographers, typewriters and electricity.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan noted: "Is there a reason why the government is not ensuring full tribunals? That is a strong indication of the breakdown of rule of law.”

Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president and senior advocate Vikas Pahwa said that there is now the need for a data bank to provide details of seniority, number of reported cases or other objective parameters for members of the bar to be nominated as judges.

"Lobbying to become a judge should actually be a disqualification. lawyers need to be cajoled and persuaded [to take up judicial posts],” Pahwa said, making his case for nominating lawyers to become judges well in advance of scheduled judicial retirements.

Government perspective

Former law minister Salman Khurshid, speaking on the panel, said that the biggest hurdle to having a fully functional judiciary is the frequent rotation of the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

"We don't have an appellate judiciary which is stable at the top,” said Khurshid, lamenting that if one CJI has not been able to push his judicial nominations past the collegium for several months but eventually does, then the retirement of that CJI will push the process back again if the new CJI doesn't agree with the former CJI's nominations.

Khurshid added that "natural barriers” such as regional ratio rules in judicial appointments, and "unnatural barriers” such as "the egos, likes and dislikes” of the collegium also ensure that some "outstanding people” from the bar never make it as judges.

Khurshid also said that even though India reportedly needs 70,000 judges to clear the backlog of 3.2 crore cases, our training capacity is not sufficient to prepare even 20,000 new judges.

Pahwa said that CJI Dipak Misra has told him that he intends to appoint Supreme Court lawyers as high court judges now, while BAI and SILF president Lalit Bhasin said that law teachers who are in the category of "jurists”, such as Prof Madhav Menon, Prof Upendra Baxi and Prof Moolchand Sharma by virtue of their longstanding experience are also strong candidates for judicial nomination.

Seconding Bhasin, Divan noted that the constitution already carries a provision for appointing jurists as judges at the higher judiciary.

Click to show 1 comment
at your own risk
(alt+shift+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
refresh Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments. Sort chronologically
1
Show?
Like +3 Object -0 urolmohan 11 Feb 18, 20:45
The very process of being selected for legal education, law exams and various entry-point exams have been vitiated for a long time; aspirants and law graduates are taught pretty early that they have to ingratiate their way up the ladder. Economically unviable careers in litigation have driven the best talent to corporate practice and to other avenues. The vacuum this left has been filled by insecure and poorly equipped legal professionals. It is an embarrassment to watch them perform in court. On several occasions, I have had to "guide" them on questions they should ask witnesses like me when we appear as experts if they have to enter expert opinions into the evidence. I have left courtrooms feeling sorry for the litigants - and even the presiding officer who gets a bad name because he has to base his judgement on recorded evidence.

The mettle of a lawyer to rise to the judiciary can only be tested in the courtrooms, and hence having a rich pool in litigation is vital. Perhaps, the onus is now on the elite lawyers who are well-off to offer lucrative compensation to young law graduates and groom them into litigation practice. I have heard some of the elite argue on television channels and in other debates about how they have huge establishments to support and cannot afford to pay more to their junior associates. Unless this situation is remedied through a systematic, scientifically implemented change in compensations, the very same luminaries will end up arguing their briefs before benches that don't measure up to the required standards. Mechanical filling-up of vacancies in the appellate judiciary will worsen the problem further, and litigants will suffer for no fault of theirs.

I am still not convinced that politicians ought to have the highest say in judicial appointments, going by how Governors of states are being appointed based purely on political affiliations and irrespective of their knowledge of the Constitution and constitutional law. If they have to turn to the Home ministry for every issue in the legislature what value do they bring to the role? So too the chairpersons of professional bodies and corporations! Unless the political executive formulates policies (which after all is their prerogative), legislates suitably, and moves away from a role in judicial appointments subsequently there will always be scope for lobbying, currying favours and demands for quid pro quo.

This could perhaps be augmented with a code of conduct, with statutory backing, for judicial officers at every level with anyone resorting to something on the "Dont's" list being automatically weeded out of the elevation process.
Reply Report to LI


Latest comments