E-Paper
For CJI Lalit, 74-day tenure in which he ticked several boxes
As the UU Lalit went about setting up Constitution benches to streamline the listing mechanism, worked on taking out old cases lying in cold storage, and sought to usher in transparency in proceedings through live-streaming, questions were raised whether the new CJI had promised too much.
It was set to be a race against time -- especially after justice Uday Umesh Lalit provided glimpses into his plans as the Chief Justice of India (CJI) days before taking over on August 27.
At the time, his 74-day tenure brimmed with an itinerary that involved enriching the perception of the judiciary by setting about institutional changes to deal with pendency of cases, and reclamation of the Supreme Court’s stature as a court with the core function of laying down laws and interpreting the Constitution.
As the new CJI went about setting up Constitution benches to streamline the listing mechanism, worked on taking out old cases lying in cold storage, and sought to usher in transparency in proceedings through live-streaming, questions were raised whether justice Lalit had promised too much.
As India’s 49th Chief Justice demits office on November 8, the time is apt for an objective analysis of the tenure of a judge who checked most of the boxes in his to-do list, kept up the esteem and authority of the Supreme Court, and brought in a spate of reforms, yet fell short as the head of the collegium in matters of judicial appointments.
Justice Lalit commenced his tenure on a high note. While there was no Constitution bench hearing during the entire 16-month tenure of his predecessor, justice NV Ramana, justice Lalit began his stint ascertaining that the Supreme Court prioritised Constitution bench cases to untangle the complex questions of laws.
A record six Constitution benches were set up during his tenure, touching upon a raft of politically sensitive cases and issues of crucial importance such as reservation for economically weaker section (EWS), demonetisation, amendment to the Citizenship Act, anti-defection law in the wake of the Maharashtra political crisis, and the power tussle between the Centre and the Delhi government.
These Constitution benches fulfilled yet another promise made by CJI Lalit in August – involvement of maximum number of judges -- by giving an opportunity to almost every judge of the Supreme Court, irrespective of their seniority and length of tenure.
The success of these five-judge benches was evident when former attorney general KK Venugopal praised justice Lalit at a farewell function on Monday, for listing at least 24 Constitution bench cases, which Venugopal lamented had remained “drowned and buried” for a long time. Of these 24 cases, the Constitution benches could rule finally on four, including its landmark EWS quota judgment on Monday.
Justice Lalit’s predecessor, justice Ramana, had also attracted criticism for his reluctance as “master of the roster” to list cases bearing significant political and economic ramifications. Cases such as the validity of electoral bonds as a tool of political funding, the challenges to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, and the ban on the hijab in Karnataka’s educational institutions were not listed during justice Ramana’s tenure.
Justice Lalit changed this and reinforced the perception of the Supreme Court as the highest judicial forum, unhesitant to take up and decide all that came up before it.
Swift start
As the administrative head of the apex court, justice Lalit started off on August 27 bringing around 550 matters reportedly marked as “sensitive” back in circulation. The distribution of cases assumes equal emphasis and importance, for various CJIs in the past were criticised for allotting politically sensitive and high-profile cases to a select few. Justice Lalit’s tenure remained clear of any such blemish, with cases getting distributed to different benches comprising various judges.
Justice Lalit also revived the old system of listing with minimal intervention so that all fresh cases are placed before the judges within two weeks. A long queue of lawyers would line up before him at 10.30am to mention cases and seek an early hearing. And the CJI would assure them of a listing if the cases were ready. But justice Lalit had one condition for lawyers – be ready to argue a case. Many of the mentionings were converted into full-fledged hearings and the cases were disposed of.
Justice Lalit’s determination to streamline the listing mechanism and the registry stems from a golden principle that the Supreme Court must be an institution which is ready to list all cases with transparency, hear them fairly, and decide them quickly, especially when they are topical and impact the citizenry.
His resolve to bring order to listing saw a curious turn of events last week when a bench led by justice Lalit initiated judicial proceedings against its own officials over delays in listing cases. On Monday, he left it to the incoming CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud to proceed with the matter on the administrative side, after having sounded a strong word of caution against any unwarranted practices or discretion by the registry officials in listing matters.
Justice Lalit’s first day as the CJI on August 29 saw a record 592 fresh cases getting heard, with 15 two-judge benches in the Supreme Court taking up at least 60 cases each — almost double the earlier average. While the sheer number of these cases raised concerns regarding the adequacy of time to hear the matters fixed for lengthy hearings, justice Lalit led by example as he sat for extra hours and ensured the closure of the maximum possible number of cases.
At the farewell function organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association, justice Lalit took pride in the fact that the top court could dispose of 10,000 cases during his tenure, “taking the slice out of the mounting arrears to a large extent.”
His tenure further witnessed the highest judiciary shedding its reluctance against the camera. History was created in September when the Supreme Court live-streamed its Constitution bench proceedings. On September 27, three court halls beamed crucial proceedings that involved intricate issues of constitutional and legal significance, having far-reaching ramifications.
The step was taken following a unanimous resolution of the full court to expand people’s right to access justice by broadcasting constitution bench cases as a regular feature. The move also saw the top court administration finally complying with its 2018 ruling that recommended live-streaming.
Controversies and misses
This is not to say that justice Lalit’s tenure did not see its share of controversies.
While justice Lalit earned praise for protecting the cherished right of freedom and liberty when benches headed by him gave bail to activist Teesta Setalvad and journalist Siddique Kappan in separate cases, questions were raised about his administrative discretion when he set up a special bench on a Saturday at the request of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) which had challenged the exoneration of former Delhi University professor GN Saibaba over his alleged links with an extremist banned organisation. The Saturday hearing saw the suspension of the high court order acquitting Saibaba.
Days after this order, senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, at an event, said that he had “never heard of an acquittal being suspended in a special Saturday hearing”. Sibal appeared both for Setalvad and Kappan before justice Lalit when the latter’s bench granted them bail.
Many other experts, who had applauded justice Lalit’s concerns for liberty of individuals after the grant of bail to Setalvad and Kappan, pointed out that the top court usually allowed an urgent hearing only to protect someone’s life and liberty.
Judicial appointments turned out to be another thorn in the flesh that justice Lalit could not address, chiefly either because of the Centre’s indisposition to approve the proposals recommended by the collegium or lack of consensus in the collegium.
For appointment in the Supreme Court, the collegium headed by justice Lalit on September 26 sent the recommendation for Bombay high court chief justice Dipankar Dutta, but the proposal is still pending with the government. Similarly, recommendations dated September 28 for transfer of Orissa high court chief justice S Muralidhar as the chief justice of Madras high court and appointment of a judge of the Orissa high court as its chief justice are pending.
Justice Lalit also faced a difficult time persuading his brethren in the collegium to arrive at a consensus. A failed collegium meeting days before he was supposed to name his successor prompted justice Lalit to take the unprecedented step of seeking written consent of his fellow judges in the collegium on September 30 for the appointment of four new judges in the Supreme Court. The move did not yield a desired result for justice Lalit after two of the other four judges in the collegium “objected to the process of selection and appointing judges by circulation” instead of in-person deliberations. Through a resolution dated October 9, the Supreme Court put out in public domain the details of the failed collegium meeting while declaring the termination of the proposal to appoint four new judges.
Justice Lalit’s short tenure will be remembered mostly as one premised on well-meaning endeavours . His crowning achievement would undoubtedly be bringing back to the Supreme Court the glory of being a true constitutional court which must prioritise decisions on issues of momentous importance and evolution of jurisprudential principles.
