HC judges and CJs fearful of SC Collegium
NEW DELHI: In seeking an Allahabad HC judge’s personal explanation, the
Supreme Court Collegium
appears to have stepped around the mechanism prescribed in memorandum of procedure to deal with errant judges and impermissibly assumed supervisory powers over the High Courts.
Was the judge obliged to appear before the Collegium on Tuesday to tender his personal explanation for his controversial speech at a
VHP event
on Dec 8? TOI spoke to a cross-section of judges in different High Courts who said that he had no option but to appear before the Collegium, which could have taken serious view of his failure to respond to the summons and transferred him to another far-off HC as a punitive measure.
Ex-CJIs told TOI that the memorandum of procedure (MoP) specifies that in case of an errant HC judge, the
CJI
could speak with the concerned HC chief justice and request him to counsel the concerned judge. If the devious behaviour is non-condonable, then the CJI can seek a report from the HC CJ on the matter.
Once the CJ, after talking to the judge in question, gives the report, the CJI can seek the opinion of a senior judge outside the Collegium on whether the issue requires an in-house inquiry. Thereafter the CJ’s report and the SC judge’s opinion is placed before the Collegium to take a call on whether an in-house inquiry committee is to be set up.
The HC judges were unanimous that though the High Courts are constitutionally distinct and independent entities, the SC Collegium, which has the power to recommend transfer of CH judges and CJs as well as select Judges and CJs for elevation to the SC, has over the years assumed the role of ‘super boss’ in judiciary.
The recurring theme of refrain of HC judges was – “power to recommend transfers of HC judges and chief justices has been weaponized to make the HC judges dare not act independent of the views of the CJI-led Collegium. The allurement of getting elevated to the SC, which gives a judge three more years at a more powerful constitutional post, has made the CJs agree to the wishes of the CJI and Collegium.”
They said the fact that HCs are not subordinate to the SC has been accepted repeatedly by the SC in its judgments and that is the reason why the SC even on the judicial side cannot direct a HC to decide a case within a specified time frame.
The high courts have a pendency of nearly 62 lakh cases with an existing strength of 1114 judges, which works out to 5547 cases per judge. The SC with a working strength of 33 judges has a pendency of over 82,000 cases, working out to 2494 cases per judge. In addition, each HC judge supervises the working of the district courts and guides meaningful work of the district legal services authority.
While the HC’s can direct the district judiciary, also referred till recently as subordinate judiciary, the SC cannot do so for the HCs. The HC judges wonder as to whether the SC Collegium could take similar action if the person happens to be a SC judge.
Every CJI comes with his own ideas about reforming the justice delivery system, the HC judges said, adding that the CJs of HCs, who are from outside the concerned state, being on the verge of either getting considered for appointment to the SC or retirement, agree unhesitatingly to the CJI’s proposals for reforms without realizing that states with diverse socio-economic conditions need different approach for reducing litigation.
