Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Union Law Minister, Kiren Rijiju last week spoke about the Indian Judiciary and collegium system. He said, 

"Constitution is very clear that the President has to appoint the Supreme Court and High Court judges in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The constitution is supreme but when the Supreme Court struck down the National Judicial Commission Act 2015 we respected it and did not act on it but that does not mean we will be silent forever. We don't want to show anything which will portray us in a situation where there is a confrontation with the judiciary and the government is not in terms of the judiciary. We are on good terms with the judiciary and judges know that the law minister is not against the judiciary or judges. We are part of the same team and three different organs of the same state" 

The Union Law Minister, Kiren Rijiju was in conversation with India Today at a Conclave that was held in Mumbai last week.

In a back-and-forth about the judicial system in India, the Union Minister said that:

“I am not critical about judiciary or judges but I am stating a fact which is a reflection of the thinking of the common people of India. When we talk about systems, then immediately what comes to our mind is transparency and accountability. When we have a system that is not transparent and accountable, and opaque it reflects the thoughts of the lawyers and judges. No system can be 100% perfect. But we need to strive for a better system. When Parliament passed the National Judicial Commission Act in 2015, the SC struck it down. They should have told us which system would be better”

The minister while expressing his views on the Collegium System and appointment of judges said that:

“I am not satisfied with the present collegium system and the majority of the judges agree with me and that is a fact. I am not saying anything contrary to their beliefs. If you are a consultee judge in the collegium then the basic fault in the system is that you will recommend those names who are acquaintances to you and who are known to you. You will not recommend someone who you don’t know. The fault in the system is that you don’t recommend them even if he is a qualified, fit, and, good judge for the High court and Supreme Court. The fittest of the person should be elevated and not the person who you know”

The Minister while making a contrasting observation about the global judicial appointments as opposed to the Indian Judicial System of appointment stated,

“Across the globe judges don’t appoint judges. It is only in India, that the judiciary has made this provision that the judges appoint judges. When there is such a provision, they have to devote a lot of time. High Court judges devote a lot of time to the process and there is politics there. The politics that we politicians do are nothing in front of the politics of the judiciary. It is not visible but there is intense politics."

The Union Minister further questioned, "Should Judges spend more time on delivering justice to the system or should they spend more time in the administrative process?”

While discussing the workload on the judiciary and complaints received by him about court vacations, the Union Minister pointed out that:

“Nowhere in the world does any judge performs the amount of task as an Indian judge. Each judge deals with 50-60 cases every day. I get complaints that judges get holidays 3 times a year and why judges should enjoy so much? I tell them that otherwise the judges will break down.”

The Union Minister also advised the judges to not indulge in oral observation and speak through their orders. He said, “A judge should speak through his judgment. Oral observations have no bearing. My advice is- don’t come into a situation where you will invite criticism. Whatever you have to do, do it with your order.”

When the Union Minister was questioned about the increase in the tenure of judges and the high pendency of cases in the judiciary, the minister commented,

“We are not increasing the tenure of judges. If the decision has to be taken then it can be taken later. There is no plan as such. My target regarding judiciary is that not only the pendency should be reduced but also justice delivery should be faster.”

The Union Minister while criticizing the listing of bail petitions in the Supreme Court and frivolous cases being filed in the courts questioned-

“More than half of the case does not deserve to be listed. Why should Supreme Court involve itself in bail petitions? Every bail is going to Supreme Court. Bail petitions are to be dealt by the lower court.  A very limited number should come to the High Court. Unless it is the death penalty or a serious matter, it should not be dealt with by Supreme Court. Why is every case to be listed? Many cases are frivolous. There are PILs but that is private interest litigation. Judiciary has to decide what cases are not worthy of being listed. I don’t know why everything has to go to court.”

When the Union Minister was questioned about regional benches of the Supreme Court and vacancies in the High Court, the minister said:

“We are deliberating on the larger issues of whether a Supreme Court in the south is required or more number of High Court are required but last year the vacancy in the High Court was close to 500 and now the vacancy is 326.”

Further, criticizing the colonial mindset that has impeded the society, the Union Minister stated,

"Why can’t the High Court of Andhra Pradesh use Telegu? Why can't the Bombay High Court use Marathi? Why not Assamese in Assam? Colonial mindset has been cribbed all over our heads. People think if you can speak better English, then you can get better justice. I want the court to be accessible to everyone from everywhere. Supreme Court of India is the Supreme Court of India and not the Supreme Court of Delhi. If lawyers who stay in Delhi are only getting better access to Supreme Court then we have to think about it. Very soon we should allow translation in Supreme Court also and lawyers should be allowed to argue in the language they are comfortable in."

Bringing an end to the conversation, the Minister stated:

“Supreme Court and some High Court have started live streaming. Judges don’t face elections but they are being watched closely. The government informed the Supreme Court that it is thinking about changing the sedition law and despite that SC struck down the provision and I was very upset about it.