Editorial: Centre’s delaying tactics

The delay in clearing the appointment of judges to the higher courts reflects poorly on the functioning of the Central government and also raises questions over its commitment to speedy justice. Though the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the names for appointment as judges in the higher judiciary, the Centre is sitting over the list. […]

The delay in clearing the appointment of judges to the higher courts reflects poorly on the functioning of the Central government and also raises questions over its commitment to speedy justice. Though the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the names for appointment as judges in the higher judiciary, the Centre is sitting over the list. It is deplorable on the part of the union government to be withholding the list of names sent by the apex court. It reflects the simmering conflict between the judiciary and the executive over the method of appointment, transfer and elevation of HC and SC judges. The SC has rightly raised objections over the Centre’s uncooperative attitude and observed that it had become ‘some sort of a device’ to force the persons whose names had been recommended to withdraw their consent for judgeship. Notably, 11 cases cleared and reiterated by the ollegium, some more than a year ago, are awaiting appointment. This is creating avoidable friction between the judiciary and the executive. No doubt, the successive governments — both the UPA and the NDA — have reservations over the collegium system but it is not justified to create hurdles for the already decided appointments under the existing system. Upholding the collegium system, the apex court had, in 2015, struck down the one envisaged under the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) Act. On the other hand, Law Minister Kiren Rijiju has in the past two months been vocal about the NJAC as he found the Collegium functioning ‘opaque’.

However, resorting to delaying tactics is not a solution to the impasse. The government should deliberate on the issue properly and till a resolution acceptable to both parties is reached, it should honour the current system in place. Because, at stake is the fate of lakhs of litigants who are denied quick delivery of justice due to a shortage of judicial staff. The collegium system is widely seen as an oligarchical rather than a fair entity. It needs to change in the interest of transparency in the functioning of the judiciary. Greater transparency in the system will ensure that the best candidates apply for judicial positions. There has been a prolonged stand-off between the government and the judiciary over the issue of the appointment of judges. This friction appeared to turn into a turf war after the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional. The commission was proposed as a replacement for the five-member collegium. Though the idea was part of broader judicial reforms to make appointments to the higher judiciary more transparent, the Supreme Court saw it as an attempt to encroach on its domain. The process of appointment of judges should be reviewed thoroughly and a self-corrective mechanism must be put in place to restore public faith in the delivery of justice.

---