Supreme is unique!

Judicial reform answer to delayed justice

The Chief Justice of India (CJI), KG Balakrishnan, has come out firmly against the recommendation of the Law Commission that the Supreme Court (SC) be reorganised into a Constitution bench in Delhi and four regional benches. In this, he seems to be reflecting the predominant opinion in senior legal circles as the Attorney General and also some leading lawyers have voiced similar opinion. Justice Balakrishnan has asserted that he is not in favour of “disintegration” of the SC which “is the highest court of the land and should be in the Capital city of the country”. That indeed is the nub of the matter. There is a powerful symbolism to the country’s apex court which vests it with a unique sense of authority and goes beyond its official status as the ultimate arbiter of justice and protector of the Constitution. Such an institution cannot be anywhere other than the Capital, and just as there is only one Parliament, there can be only one SC. This is, of course, not to ignore the purpose behind the Law Commission’s recommendations — taking forward judicial reform. There is an urgency to that task as both the quality and the speed at which justice is delivered today fall far short of the required minimum. Justice Balakrishnan has himself noted the rise in the backlog in the SC in recent years. All attention must, therefore, shift to a host of measures which can reduce the backlog and improve the quality of judicial disconcession on which there is a fair degree of agreement. The SC itself can reduce its own workload by relooking at what it decides to admit like public interest litigation. The Constitution can also be suitably amended so that not everything that the high courts rule is appealable. The Law Commission itself has mentioned aspects like raising the sitting period of judges, reducing the length of court vacations and coming down heavily on lawyers seeking too many adjournments and judges granting them.

However, the aspect that must receive the foremost attention of both the higher courts and the government is the twin issues of judicial vacancies and the need to create more benches. Senior judicial positions remaining vacant for long periods is unconscionable. As the collegium of judges is now fully empowered to make higher judicial appointments, vacancies reflect poorly on senior judges themselves. It can make sense for the CJI to point out any government delay in effecting judicial appointments which have been recommended by the collegium. Conversely, if the delay is on the part of the collegium, then that will reflect poorly on it. It would also be helpful if the CJI kept the public informed about the status of proposals to raise the number of benches in both the high courts and the SC. Having more courts is essential as with the rise in population, income, education and complexity of life, the volume of judicial work is bound to increase. There is, however, a key problem in this regard — a paucity of talent suitable for appointment as senior judges. There can be no solution to this in the short run, and it may be advisable to fill up vacancies with whatever best is on offer as vacancies cause the most damage. It may also be advisable to raise the retirement age of high court judges to the same level as applicable to SC judges as that will offer an immediate short-term relief.