Taking stock of the Judiciary

A large number of cases pending,excessive delays,enormous vacancies,lacking strength. Fast track courts being set up. Parliament amended the CrPC Code in 2005 making provision for settlement of criminal cases through the “plea bargaining” process. Similarly, on the civil side, alternate dispute resolution methods are being employed through the now well known indigenous institutions of “Lok Adalat”(Peoples’ Court) organized under judicial supervision particularly during week ends.Court annexed mediation centres being setup.Enable judges to attempt settlement at the first hearing itself. The Government should set up infrastructure for court computerization.

Judicial activism and public interest litigation have had a good success.The system expects people to know their rights and assert their claims according to the legally prescribed procedures which indeed is beyond the capacity of the one-third population being poor and illiterate. It is in this context, the Indian judiciary invoked “activism”. Of course, it disturbed the pre-existing balance of powers and raised sharp criticism both from the executive and the legislature. One can highlight several instances where the Court interpreted fundamental rights expansively. Again, the anti-defection law which gave power to Speakers of legislatures to determine “defection cases” invited judicial interventions raising the wrath of legislatures and political parties. judicial accountability is inseparable from judicial independence. The challenge before the Nation is how to secure judicial accountability without impairing judicial independence.

The issue of having a fixed tenure for the CJI arises owing to the short tenures that Chief Justices have on average. In the last 20 years, there have been 16 Chief Justices of India.  The limited length of such tenures, in turn, is directly attributable to the rigid adherence to the seniority convention, by which, at the time a vacancy in the Chief Justice’s post arises, the senior-most judge in the Supreme Court is appointed irrespective of the length of tenure remaining before his retirement. It is well accepted that excessively frequent transitions lead to systemic inefficiencies, increase incoherence in strategies to deal with ongoing problems.

Judges need to evolve self-correction mechanism.The credibility of the judiciary is so high in the public eye.Judiciary should be cautious about delivering perception-driven verdicts, especially when perceptions were sourced from "five-star activists".Need to improve court's infrastructure.Is the existence of over 100 tribunals that eat into financial resources necessary?Currently, judge to population ratio is 1:61000.Archaic laws contribute to backlog as courts take years to interpret these poorly drafted laws.