Sunil Sethi
Judicial Appointments system for filling vacancies in superior Judiciary is subject of much discussion and criticism for some time. Two underlining factors which keep the focus on issue is the nature of appointments and its impact on nation and secondly that the procedure for evaluation of candidates is neither transparent nor laid down , leaving much room for arbitratrariness and interference of many extraneous factors.
That the system has failed to the expectations of nation is very obvious from large pendency of cases in court . Contrary to what is being feeded to public by biased minds, the problem is more of quality then quantity. The system of dispensation of justice needs an activist judge who makes extra efforts to do justice to himself for high oath taken , before he do justice to the litigants before him. A judge with mediocre or less understanding of concepts of Laws and Justice will find it extremely difficult to dispense quick and effective justice whatever may be quality of advocacy before him because it will still be left to his food understanding to translate arguments to judgement. Otherwise quick judgements will lead to Appeals and multiplicity which is happening in present system. A good judgement should have attributes of satisfying both parties, even person against whom it is given so that he could read clearly futility of going to high forums. When appeals are being filed in every case where litigants can afford it reflects poorly of the justice being delivered.
As the system working is so heavily dependent on human factors it becomes of utter importance to select the very best purely on merit and no other influence of affiliations, relationships, liking etc should be allowed to intervene. Only looking for non controversial persons at the cost of merit is no answer . An advocate who is active and well performing will surely be in controversies . Non performing and advocates having no practice or activeness won’t be in any controversy. A bird which flies flutter while as a sitting bird makes no noise . The follies in the system was understood by nation which led to passing of act by Parliament on Judicial Appointment Commission. It met with rejection by Supreme Court is matter of past now. The present system didn’t want to give away it’s unfettered and arbitrary powers even when whole nation yearned for it, is also too obvious by now.
Present dispute revolves around formalisation of Memorandum of Procedure ( MOP ) which broadly fixes the contours of consideration by Collegium both at Supreme Court and High Courts level so that some semblance of transparency in the system to obviate allegations of pick and choose and distribution of assets within collegium members . The earlier the consideration system is fixed by MOP the better it will be for system . Relaying of MOP is directed by Supreme Court on Judicial side in NJAC judgement but on administrative side supreme Court insisting for pushing recommendations on old system of MOP which had been found inadequate and inappropriate on Judicial side speaks volumes on the real element of controversy .
One Chief Justice in tears in public platform makes instant news but who will wipe tears from swelled eyes of million of litigants waiting for justice for decades which never came their way because of huge gap between expectations and availability. More than anyone else the judicial system has to answer itself what it intends to do with itself. The effectiveness of judicial dispensation has been eroded over years because of reasons which are too obvious and which had been overlooked for reasons too obvious. Judiciary has to do justice with itself first before expecting people to believe in quality of justice they will be getting.
The judgements of courts especially of supreme courts should be voluntarily honoured by people because of its quality and not because they can be thrust down throats by use of stick of contempt . The judgement of court should be reflection of judgement of God . Fair and impartial . Judges are taken to be reflections of God on earth . A judge failing in his job shakes confidence of public in system and existence too . Those who get opportunities to select Lords should be fair enough to look for true attributes .
Unpardonable is the assertation of considerations on elements of proportionate representations or caste or religious adjustments . This is just ridiculous even to imagine any factor other than merit playing any role . Large number of elevations have led to raised eye brows and suspicious looks of evaluators which is really telling . If we look to past number of persons recommended and blocked at later stage were found to be bad choices . Not all cleared will be all fair. That’s law of probability. Why for making wrong recommendations of persons involved in controversies there should be no accountability of collegium ? Why Collegium making wrong judgement should be allowed to go free ? Why selections should go by distribution? Why there are two classes of advocates one who are good lawyers and others who are meant to be judges only ? People awaits answer …
AND WAIT CONTINUES
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel