Order. Order. Order. Govt-Judiciary on collision course?

SUBHASHIS MITTRA- Wide Angle

Is the government trying to orchestrate a confrontation with the judiciary? At least the recent statements by Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju on the judiciary on matters relating to the Collegium system to bail applications makes one wonder.

 

Rijiju waded into a controversy recently by saying that a constitutional body such as Supreme Court should not be hearing "bail applications and frivolous PILs" when pendency of cases is so high.

 

The Law minister also sounded critical when he said that Supreme Court judges take too many vacations. He did not mince words when he said that there is a feeling among the people that the long vacation which the courts obtain is not very convenient for justice-seekers.

 

Rijiju went on to question the process of appointments to the higher judiciary. His statement raises a very fundamental question - does the government of the day believe in Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty)?

 

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud reacted to the minister's remarks. He said tust no case is too small for the Supreme Court. “If we do not act in matters of personal liberty and grant relief, then what are we doing here?,” the CJI posed.

 

A bench of CJI Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha highlighted the importance of “personal liberty”, saying the top court will be acting “in breach” of its special constitutional powers if it does not act in cases pertaining to the violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country.

 

“What for are we here if we do not listen to our conscience?” the bench asked while setting aside an Allahabad high court order on the plea of a man who was to suffer a jail term of 18 years in nine matters under the Electricity Act.

 

“No case is small for the Supreme Court. If we do not act in matters of personal liberty and grant relief, then what are we doing here?” asked the bench. “We will be acting in breach of Article 136 (special powers to grant relief under the Constitution) if we do not act in the matter of personal liberty.”

 

The issue regarding court vacations has been raised earlier also but judges, including former CJI NV Ramana, had said there is a misconception that judges stay in ultimate comfort and enjoy their holidays. Delivering the inaugural Justice SB Sinha Memorial Lecture on ‘Life of a Judge’, the then CJI Ramana had said judges spend sleepless nights rethinking their decisions.

 

“There exists a misconception in the minds of the people that judges stay in ultimate comfort, work only from 10 am to 4 pm and enjoy their holidays. Such a narrative is untrue… when false narratives are created about the supposed easy life led by judges, it is difficult to swallow,” he had said.

 

Justice Ramana had also said the responsibility of judging is extremely burdensome owing to the human implication of the rulings. “We continue to work even during weekends and court holidays to do research, and to author pending judgments. In this process, we miss out on many joys of our lives,” he had said.

 

Similarly, a former judge of the Delhi High Court, Justice Jayant Nath, has observed that the public perception of courts going on vacations like schools was not correct and an appropriate machinery must be engaged to project their hard work for an “image change”. It is a known fact that courts are overburdened with long pending cases.

 

Unfortunately, the perception of a common man is to blame the court for delay in disposal of cases. Much is said about the courts going on vacations, comparing it with school vacations. "I can say with full conviction that this public image is not correct,” Justice Nath had said while speaking at his farewell.

 

The collegium system has become a major flashpoint between the Supreme Court and the Union government, with the mechanism of judges appointing judges drawing criticism from different quarters. Rijiju had on November 25 launched a fresh attack, saying the collegium system is “alien” to the Constitution.

 

On the judicial side, an apex court bench led by Justice S.K. Kaul has been very critical of the delay by the Centre in clearing the names recommended by the collegium for appointment as judges to constitutional courts, saying the collegium system is the law of the land and comments against it are “not well-taken”.

 

The law minister even renewed the pitch in the Rajya Sabha for the government having a greater say in appointments to the higher judiciary. Rijiju said the issue of pendency of cases in courts cannot be resolved until a new system for the appointment of judges is evolved.

 

"We are extending full support to end the pendency of cases in various courts. But on appointments, the issue will continue to be raised till a new system is put in place. The question of vacancies in the judiciary and appointments will continue to be raised," he said.

 

"I do not like to mention this time and again, but the system (of appointment of judges) is not according to the views expressed by this House," the minister said, adding that the government has the right to make appointments to the higher judiciary.

 

There was a constitutional provision to this effect and this was done in consultation with the courts. But everything changed after 1993.