The CJI’s tenure has seen many firsts appointments to courts, more women judges and elevation of lawyers. His boldness in promoting the rule of law should also be seen in expediting adjudication of cases.
Only nine lawyers have become judges since the establishment of the Supreme Court. The practice to appoint lawyers as judges to the top court provides distinguished lawyers an opportunity to serve on the apex bench that decides the legal destiny of the people.
It is so paradoxical that the Supreme Court which always tries to keep a check over every other organ/institution/body under the Constitution has been questioned for failing to apply the same discipline to its own administrative decisions.
Chief Justice of India NV Ramana recently said that the issue relating to women’s representation in the judiciary must be highlighted and debated on a large scale. It’s an important issue that deserves serious attention by all stakeholders of the legal profession.
Asserting its primacy in judges’ appointments in the superior judiciary, the Supreme Court collegium headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana has unanimously reiterated its previous recommendations to press the appointments of 12 persons, including three judicial officers, to five High Courts —Rajasthan, Allahabad, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, and Calcutta.
Even as the collegium recommended nine names as judges to the apex court, there was none from minority communities. The Court should reflect the composite culture and constitutional values of the nation.
The collegium has the extraordinary opportunity of recommending 13 names for judges. But before that, it needs to build consensus and consider deserving candidates to reflect the composite culture of India.
Nowadays, lengthy, incomprehensible judgments, particularly in constitutional cases, are the order of the day. But the interpretation of law must be clear, precise and succinct so that people understand them.
Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court was pulled up by the apex court for not hearing a bail application for over a year. This is a deprivation of liberty, leaving the accused to languish in jail for years.