Correcting the image of the higher judiciary
Former Supreme Court judge Madan Lokur is known for his candour and courage. His occasional pungent comments on a wide array of subjects were quite a draw when he was on the Bench and also thereafter. He never minced words even when discretion and silence were an alluring option. He often publicly speaks his mind about several issues pertaining to the Indian judiciary. His criticisms often focus on the executive’s attempts to tinker with the independence of the judiciary. Not everybody will agree with his criticisms, but these certainly can’t be ignored or glossed over.
At the recent World Justice Forum in Warsaw recently, Lokur was categorical that there were many aspects of our judiciary which should cause us concern. Pointing out India’s low rank (79/142) in the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index, he stated that this showed the country in a very poor light. The emphasis during his address was on the judiciary’s relations with the executive. He threw more than a hint that governments were uncomfortable with independent judges and said delays in approving the recommendations of the apex court’s collegium on judicial appointments had become far too frequent for comfort. Also, the executive was not acting fast in cases of corruption in the judiciary brought to its notice. He also referred to the huge backlog of cases in Indian courts. These criticisms need to be taken seriously because the country is doing so well on the economic front and cannot afford a poor image for its judiciary. From geopolitical standing to investment attractiveness, much will be at risk if such an image of the judiciary persists.
Except for an occasional undignified debate or two, we have had a good record in respect of the higher judiciary. Even in connection with the recent episode involving Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court, comments by the Supreme Court have been level-headed and dignified. The same cannot be said of the lower judiciary where there have been vituperative exchanges across the country’s courts. What Lokur said in Warsaw was not anything that we did not already know. It has also been repeatedly said that in no other country are judges chosen by the judiciary itself. India is different and the Supreme Court has given itself this unique privilege. There is no point in getting exercised about it, unless it is proved that a nominee of the collegium which chooses him or her is a known dubious individual with no credentials at all.
{{/usCountry}}Except for an occasional undignified debate or two, we have had a good record in respect of the higher judiciary. Even in connection with the recent episode involving Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court, comments by the Supreme Court have been level-headed and dignified. The same cannot be said of the lower judiciary where there have been vituperative exchanges across the country’s courts. What Lokur said in Warsaw was not anything that we did not already know. It has also been repeatedly said that in no other country are judges chosen by the judiciary itself. India is different and the Supreme Court has given itself this unique privilege. There is no point in getting exercised about it, unless it is proved that a nominee of the collegium which chooses him or her is a known dubious individual with no credentials at all.
{{/usCountry}}Save for a few exceptions we have had decent — if not exactly brilliant — individuals populating the Bench at the Supreme Court and the high courts. The case of Justice Varma, formerly of the Delhi HC, is more an aberration than the norm. There is a reasonably sound system of vetting of candidates for appointment to the judiciary that ensures a bad choice does not get made. If a nominee decides to be dishonest, the fault is not that of the system but that of the frailty of human nature.
The same applies to partisanship. In every high court, there are individual judges with a predilection, normally subtle and occasionally unconcealed. Here again, suspicion of a bias colouring a decision is not good enough to paint a judge as unworthy. It is only fair that we should look for the legal correctness of a decision rather than hunt for misdemeanour.
RK Raghavan is a former director of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The views expressed are personal.