CJI: The legislature’s ambiguity, lack of foresight, and public consultation before making laws had resulted in a docket explosion due to governments’ “defiance” of judicial pronouncements, their proclivity to delegate decision-making to courts, and the legislature’s ambiguity, lack of foresight, and public consultation before making laws. Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana said on April 30 at a joint conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers convened by Prime Minister Narendra Modi that it has compelled the judiciary to meddle in policy in order to deliver justice to the common man.
In his harsh speech, the CJI highlighted how courts, already overburdened, were forced to deal with the “new challenge” of “contempt petitions” generated by governments’ “deliberate inaction” in ignoring judgments and decrees.
“Contempt petitions are a new type of legal burden on the courts that arises directly from official defiance. Governments’ deliberate inaction, notwithstanding judicial declarations, is bad for democracy’s health. The court also has to deal with the issue of the executive freely delegating decision-making authority to it. Although policy-making is not our province, the courts cannot say no if a person comes to the court with a plea to remedy his concern…” At Vigyan Bhawan, Chief Justice Ramana addressed Chief Ministers, Supreme Court justices, and Chief Justices of High Courts.
CJI said everyone should be aware of Lakshman Rekha
Though everyone should be aware of their Lakshman Rekha, and the judiciary, in particular, does not want to interfere in governance if it is done in accordance with the law, the courts have been forced to intervene in the past due to “non-performance of the various wings of the government” and “legislature not realizing its full potential.” These two issues, he noted, were burdens that the judicial system might avoid if the administration and legislators got on board.
“Legislative ambiguities exacerbate existing legal concerns.” The scope for lawsuits is reduced when the legislature passes legislation with clarity of thinking, foresight, and the welfare of the people in mind. Before implementing legislation, the legislature is supposed to gather public input and debate the bills clause by clause, thoroughly,” Chief Justice Ramana added.
A steady stream of self-serving cases masquerading as public interest litigation (PILs) consumes valuable judicial time. PILs, originally a well-intentioned concept, had fallen into petitions submitted to settle political scores and corporate rivalries, according to the CJI. The courts had been “very hesitant” to hear them.
Strength of the judiciary
The amount of sanctioned judicial power remained disproportionate to the growing caseloads that district courts, High Courts, and the Supreme Court were dealing with. To demonstrate his point, the CJI compared figures from the previous conference in 2016 to the present one, which spans six years.
“When we last convened in 2016, the country’s sanctioned judicial officer strength was 20,811.” It is now 24,112, a rise of 16 percent in just six years. Pendency in district courts, on the other hand, has increased by 54.64 percent over the same time period, from 2.65 crores to 4.11 crores. This data demonstrates how insufficient the sanctioned strength increase is… The edifice cannot be supported unless the foundation is firm, as Chief Justice Ramana reminded out.
Out of 1,104 sanctioned posts, he said there were 388 judicial vacancies in various High Courts. In 2021, the Supreme Court Collegium made 180 recommendations, with 126 of them being implemented. Another 50 ideas were still seeking approval from the Centre. Aside from that, the High Courts had nominated 100 more names for judicial appointments, but the government had yet to send them to the Supreme Court Collegium. The delay comes at a time when India’s judge-to-population ratio was “alarmingly low,” with only about 20 judges per 10 lakh people.
“Please keep in mind that the judicial procedure is the only one that is adversarial. It’s not about the judges or their decisions. We’re only carrying out our constitutionally mandated duties. Judgments are supposed to serve as a means of providing justice, and they should be treated as such. “Let us work together to accomplish the constitutional obligation,” Chief Justice Ramana pleaded with the government.
He emphasized the importance of inclusivity in the judicial system. “The court, like every other institution of our democracy, must reflect the country’s social and geographic diversity,” the CJI said.
To investigate, award funding, and implement judicial infrastructure upgrades, the CJI recommended special purpose vehicles or ‘judicial infrastructure authorities’ at both the national and state levels.
“The suggested authority is not intended to usurp any government’s powers.” All stakeholders will be represented in the proposed authority. “However, it must be recognized that the court is the greatest judge of its own needs and requirements,” the CJI stated.