01-18-2008, 02:41 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Appointing judges </b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
Collegium must not be ignored
The Government's disclosure that as many as 351 additional judges were appointed permanent judges of different High Courts between January 1999 and July 2007 without consulting the Supreme Court collegium comes as a surprise. Though it cannot be denied that permanent appointments to the High Courts are steps in the right direction, the procedural shortcoming renders them somewhat flawed. There is a regular procedure laid down for the appointment of judges in the Indian Constitution, which has also been interpreted by the Supreme Court. A law, therefore, exists -- the procedure that must be followed for these appointments as also when additional judges of the High Court are given permanent status is clearly settled. The Constitution calls for consultation between the Union Government and a collegium of senior superior court judges that includes the Chief Justice of India, selected senior judges of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned. It is a settled position in law that such consultation has to be substantial and meaningful. It cannot be an empty or meaningless gesture. In fact, judicial interpretation over the years has put the power to appoint judges essentially in the hands of this judicial collegium. It goes without saying that the views of the judiciary, which takes into account the performance of those appointed to judicial posts, is as important as Union Government's appraisal as well as inputs by the Bar. Deviation from this procedure can convey, needlessly so, the impression that there is lack of fairness. This would be unfortunate. It hardly needs saying that judicial appointments should not only be impartial, but also be seen to be so. When the Government takes upon itself the sole initiative to appoint judges, the procedure acquires a grey tone.
That the established procedure, tilted in favour of the judicial collegium, has aroused criticism and may not entirely be satisfactory is a different matter. It is open to the Government to work for a change in the procedure for the appointment of judges. But as long as a procedure exists, the Government must work within the confines of legality. It must be said, however, that the filling of vacancies in the various High Courts is necessary. There is a shortfall of judges in the country as well as a serious backlog of cases. Though this is a phenomenon more pronounced in the lower courts, it is also a serious matter in the higher courts where the crowded dockets of judges make litigants suffer, and unnecessarily so. Therefore, while the Government should not delay judicial appointments, it must ensure that the existing procedure is followed.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Appoint couple of more Judge Banerjees, that will solve court problem.
The Pioneer Edit Desk
Collegium must not be ignored
The Government's disclosure that as many as 351 additional judges were appointed permanent judges of different High Courts between January 1999 and July 2007 without consulting the Supreme Court collegium comes as a surprise. Though it cannot be denied that permanent appointments to the High Courts are steps in the right direction, the procedural shortcoming renders them somewhat flawed. There is a regular procedure laid down for the appointment of judges in the Indian Constitution, which has also been interpreted by the Supreme Court. A law, therefore, exists -- the procedure that must be followed for these appointments as also when additional judges of the High Court are given permanent status is clearly settled. The Constitution calls for consultation between the Union Government and a collegium of senior superior court judges that includes the Chief Justice of India, selected senior judges of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned. It is a settled position in law that such consultation has to be substantial and meaningful. It cannot be an empty or meaningless gesture. In fact, judicial interpretation over the years has put the power to appoint judges essentially in the hands of this judicial collegium. It goes without saying that the views of the judiciary, which takes into account the performance of those appointed to judicial posts, is as important as Union Government's appraisal as well as inputs by the Bar. Deviation from this procedure can convey, needlessly so, the impression that there is lack of fairness. This would be unfortunate. It hardly needs saying that judicial appointments should not only be impartial, but also be seen to be so. When the Government takes upon itself the sole initiative to appoint judges, the procedure acquires a grey tone.
That the established procedure, tilted in favour of the judicial collegium, has aroused criticism and may not entirely be satisfactory is a different matter. It is open to the Government to work for a change in the procedure for the appointment of judges. But as long as a procedure exists, the Government must work within the confines of legality. It must be said, however, that the filling of vacancies in the various High Courts is necessary. There is a shortfall of judges in the country as well as a serious backlog of cases. Though this is a phenomenon more pronounced in the lower courts, it is also a serious matter in the higher courts where the crowded dockets of judges make litigants suffer, and unnecessarily so. Therefore, while the Government should not delay judicial appointments, it must ensure that the existing procedure is followed.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Appoint couple of more Judge Banerjees, that will solve court problem.