ET :Samanwaya Rautray, ET Bureau | 29 Jul, 2013, 05.54AM IST
The Supreme Court is suddenly buffeted by controversy, some of its own making. The recent unseemly spectacle of two Chief Justices talking at each other via media instead of through their in-house mechanism is symptomatic of deeper malaise.
CJIs have insisted that the in-house mechanism works like a well-oiled machine, whether making top judicial appointments or transfers or dealing with disciplinary issues while insulating it from pressures from government. But never were its failings so glaringly highlighted as in last week's media slugfest.
What prevented the collegium - comprising four senior-most judges of the court apart from the CJI - from telling the former CJI not to waive procedural norms and deal with matters pending in other courts? The accusation is that Altamas Kabir took up matters concerning Sahara, Sunil Mittal and Jaiprakash Associates, which were pending with other benches, and issued orders favouring the companies.
If that is true, what prevented the collegium from speaking up against him? Or did they? Or have the CJIs tamed the collegium? These need to be answered. If the new CJI felt that these were wrong orders, he could have easily overturned them without giving the media and the public a new handle to beat the judiciary with.
This will open up a Pandora's Box of corruption, critics said. They cited the court's failed attempts to put the lid on capitation fees which are being charged long after being banned by the court. Who's going to police the private institutions?
The former CJI could have avoided this minefield if he had washed his hands off the issue, by asking the government to bring in a law to govern all aspects of education.
But ignoring the groundswell of public opinion, for years together now for some inexplicable reason the court has been stringing together an education law for the country in a very piecemeal, ad hoc fashion .
That successive governments were slack enough to loosen the reins of governance is a contributory factor, but the court could do well to stay within its own lakshman rekha, keeping both profligacy in litigation and public opprobrium under check.
Why must the court insist on subsidising government inefficiency in every case, both in terms of putting place rules and making a hash of them or not having them at all, at the risk of being guillotined? It must address issues of accountability and transparency rather than smugly brushing it under the carpet.
The notion of embedded corruption must be dispelled to restore public confidence, attempts must be made to cut down on the elephantine delays and judges' assets rigorously scrutinised, if some of the taint is to be washed off. But when will the court get down to doing this, if it's busy cleaning up after the government or washing its dirty linen in public?
The former CJI could have avoided this minefield if he had washed his hands off the issue, by asking the government to bring in a law to govern all aspects of education.
But ignoring the groundswell of public opinion, for years together now for some inexplicable reason the court has been stringing together an education law for the country in a very piecemeal, ad hoc fashion .
That successive governments were slack enough to loosen the reins of governance is a contributory factor, but the court could do well to stay within its own lakshman rekha, keeping both profligacy in litigation and public opprobrium under check.
Why must the court insist on subsidising government inefficiency in every case, both in terms of putting place rules and making a hash of them or not having them at all, at the risk of being guillotined? It must address issues of accountability and transparency rather than smugly brushing it under the carpet.
The notion of embedded corruption must be dispelled to restore public confidence, attempts must be made to cut down on the elephantine delays and judges' assets rigorously scrutinised, if some of the taint is to be washed off. But when will the court get down to doing this, if it's busy cleaning up after the government or washing its dirty linen in public?
The top court should seriously think over reforming the collegium system instead of whipping itself into a state of righteous indignation every time somebody suggests change.
There has always been a disproportionate representation of kith and kin of lawyers and judges in its appointments. Appointments when the executive had a say, were infinitely better than when the judiciary usurped the process.
The collegium system has failed to address disciplinary issues such as judges failing to turn up on time, not giving judgements for years and alleged corruption.
Where's the sensitivity or the urgency towards solving people's problems? Cases seem to go on forever, while criminals walk free. There's no respect for the law, might is right again and a restive populace is showing signs of going the lynch-mob way, while the CJIs fight it out under the glare of 24x7 cameras.
A preoccupation with cleaning up the government's Augean stables, instead of its own, has compounded the court's problems. The court often blunders into areas which are the domain of government or subject experts, earning much criticism.
Kabir's controversial last-day ruling, which shot down the Medical Council of India's proposal to have a centralised medical entrance test, is a case in point. Kabir gave private institutions the legal backing needed to hold their own entrance tests.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment