Judiciary made waves in the media in the year coming to an end but the output in terms of path-breaking judgments was not as impressive. Oral observations of judges during arguments in high-profile cases and interim orders like that in the National
Anthem petition eclipsed the fact that there were very few binding or reasoned judgments of importance.
The judges, for instance, warned of “riots in the streets” if demonetisation was badly implemented but after a few adjournments with hard-hitting remarks they merely referred nine constitutional questions to a five-judge bench. Considering the reality — the rate of disposals by Constitution benches is poor, they sit rarely, there is a shortage of judges, some 50 Constitution bench cases are already pending, some of them decades old — answers to the nine complex issues might help the brain trust just before the next demonetisation drive.
The courts appeared to be dragging their feet throughout the year in prominent cases. The one-time liquor baron Vijay Mallya seems to be beyond the reach of the law despite a consortium of banks led by State Bank of India pleading for his presence in Indian courts and disclosure of his assets. The sound and fury in the courts do not translate into orders. The Sahara group chairman, Subrata Roy, has been allowed one of the longest paroles in history but the money to repay his investors, a condition for release, has not come in. There have been several oral warnings that he might have to return to jail where he had spent two years.
The Supreme Court received a list of defaulters of bank loans above ~500 crore months ago but it is still pondering what to do with it. The court had made some stark remarks against the government and the Reserve Bank of India that hit the headlines but there have been no orders. On the other hand, the question whether the court can make the list public has become a collateral dispute despite its own earlier judgment that the authorities are bound to disclose it in queries under the Right to Information Act. Lawyer Ram Jethmalani’s petition to bring back black money stashed abroad remains frozen in time.
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) appeared to the public to be cocking a snook at the judiciary as it has largely avoided implementing the recommendations of the R M Lodha committee for reforming it. The judges have ridiculed the BCCI as a “mutual benefit society” and used threatening words, but it appeared that they were giving a long rope at various hearings. The final word has not come yet.
Reading the headlines in public interest petitions raising pollution in cities one had got the impression that the court is preparing a hammer blow on luxury vehicle manufacturers. But the exercise lasting months ended up with an interim order that diesel cars can be sold after paying one per cent levy, which the petitioner told the court was a “fig leaf” for the people concerned.
Another case that was dribbled throughout the year without hitting any goal was the strife between the Aam Aadmi Party government in Delhi and its Lt Governor. The Supreme Court has made ponderous observations but let the issue of the status of the capital hanging.
Discipline in the courts and outside is declining and the Chief Justice of India himself has compared the scene before him to a “fish market”. Half a kilometre away from the highest seat of justice, lawyers manhandled students and journalists when Jawaharlal Nehru University student leader Kanhaiya Kumar was produced in the district court on charge of sedition. Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court for action against the lawyers but the case is periodically listed only to get another proverbial tareekh. Courts continue to grant adjournments to lawyers at the drop of the gown, and they stretch arguments to mulch their clients. This is judicial leniency in excess.
These are some of the reasons for the accumulation of arrears of cases in courts, which has become the new normal, but the judiciary is reluctant to strike at the root causes. Apart from its self-inflicted wounds, the coming year will see the denouement of the shadow war between the judiciary and the executive over the collegium system in which judges appoint judges, giving a subsidiary role to the executive.
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
