Polity

KEY POINTS

·         CJI has the responsibility to take decisions on administrative matters. 

·         One such onerous responsibility is the posting of matters before his own and other benches (Master of the Roster).

Convention

·         The Chief Justice is indeed the master of the roster, a well-settled law reflected in a Constitution Bench judgment in 1998.

·         The convention of the court demands that important cases of public interest or sensitive matters should be first heard by the CJI.

·         If the CJI is not willing for some reason to hear the case, it should be assigned to the next senior-most judge in the Supreme Court.

Importance of Judicial functions

·         Being the final arbiter, its decisions have an element of permanency, until they are set aside by a larger bench.

·         The Court decides highly complex constitutional issues including those that decide the fate of governments, members of the legislature, Speakers of Houses of the legislature.

·         Executive actions, both at the level of the Union and state governments, are scrutinised by the Court and declared unconstitutional or invalid, if necessary.

·         It has the power to strike down laws enacted by Parliament and state legislatures.

·         The Court decides the fate of multinationals, large domestic conglomerates, NGO’s, LGBTs, co-operative societies, trusts etc.

·         It also decides the fate of corrupt politicians and others charged with illegal activity.

U.S. Experience

·         All the judges of the US Supreme Court meet to adjudicate matters together and not in benches of two or more.

·         Here in India, two or more judges sitting in benches decide for the entire court.

·         So the task of the CJI in assigning matters to particular benches is crucial.

Why Accountability is key?

·         The Supreme Court of India is perhaps the most powerful court in the world.

·         If matters pending before a bench are transferred to another bench by an administrative order of the CJI, that does raise issues of concern, especially when the RTI does not apply to matters relating to the Supreme Court.

·         Thus, lack of transparency in judiciary will easily led to important and highly sensitive matters being assigned to relatively junior judges creating a suspicion of vested interest.

·         Ideally, all administrative decisions must be transparent to instil confidence in a system.

·         Courts which seek transparency from others must first demonstrate it from themselves. 

INDIAN JUDICIARY HAS IMPORTANT PLACE IN OUR CONSTITUTION. ALLADI KRISHNA SWAMY AYYAR SAID THAT,”SUPREME COURT OF INDIA HAS HIGHEST POWERS THAN ANY OTHER COURT IN WORLD”. IT IS THE FINAL INTERPRETER OF CONSTITUTION AND THIS SHOWS THE IMPORTANCE  OF THE INSTITUTION.

TO PLACE JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE BEYOND SCRUTINY WOULD BE AS MYOPIC AS LIBERTY WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY. IF ACCONTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS IS THE VERY ESSENCE OF A MATURE DEMOCRACY, THEN IT SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO JUDGES OF SUPERIORR COURTS AS WELL. ACCOUNTABILITY MAKES A PERSON MORE RESPONSIBLE AND ALERT. TO GUIDE A BIG NATION LIKE INDIA ACCOUNTABILITY PLAYS A MAJORE ROLE.

JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY PROMOTES 3 IMPORTANT VALUES, I.E.         

                                1.   RULE OF LAW.

                                2.  PUBLIC CONFIDENCE ON JUDICIARY.

                                     3.  INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.     

                             IN AMERICAN MODEL ACCOUNTABILITY IS GIVEN HIGEST PRIORITY. AMERICAN STATES HAVE MERIT PLAN  SYSTEM , COURT OBSERVERS AND JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW COMMISSIONS UNDER WHICH NOT ONLY JUDGES ARE APPOINTED ON MERIT BUT THEIR CONTINUANCE IN OFFICE  BASED ON NON-PARTISAN ELECTION , THEIR KNOWLEDGE IS TESTED IN LAW, IMPARTIALITY, COMMUNICATION SKILLS , INTEGRITY ETC. AMERICAN JUDGES EGARLY WAIT FOR HARWARD LAW REVIEW WHERE THEIR DECISIONS ARE REVIEWED BY JURISTS.

                           AMERICAN SUPREME COURT JUDGES MEET TO ADJUDICATE MATTERS TOGETHER AND NOT ON BENCHES OF 2 OR MORE. IN INDIA 2 OR MORE JUDGES SITTING IN BENCHES DECIDES FOR ENTIRE COURT. HERE CJI ASSIGNING CASES TO BENCHES IS CRUCIAL. OF COURSE, IT IS HIS DISCRETION TO ASSIGN BUT THIS SHOULD HAVE A SCRUTINY. IF SENIOR MOST JUDGES BENCH IS NOT ASSIGNED FOR SENSITIVE MATTERS THEN IT WOULD HAVE FAR REACHING IMPLICATIONS.

BECAUSE SUPREME COURT IS THE GUARDIAN OF CONSTITUTION IT SHOULD BE  PROTECTED. INDIA SHOULD ADOPT BEST PRACTICES AROUND WORLD TO MAKE  MASTER OF THE ROASTER ACCOUNTABLE.

PLEASE REVIEW AND GIVE YOUR VALUABLE SUGGESTIONS @IASPARLIMENT