Former SC judge expresses concern on rising number of special leave petitions

Participating in a session at the Jaipur Literature Festival, he also said the Supreme Court had missed in 2015-16 a "good opportunity" to frame guidelines on special leave petitions as it rejected a petition in this regard

Jaipur: Expressing concern about the rising number of special leave petitions in the Supreme Court, Justice (retired) Madan B Lokur on Saturday said the situation was getting worse and claimed high courts were not following properly the constitutional provisions on issuing certificates for filing such petitions.

Participating in a session at the Jaipur Literature Festival (JLF) here, he also said the Supreme Court had missed in 2015-16 a “good opportunity” to frame guidelines on special leave petitions as it rejected a petition in this regard.

---

Various issues related to the judiciary such as its relationship with the executive, gender equality, use of artificial intelligence, and public criticism of the judiciary in the era of social media were discussed at the session on ‘Justice: The Voice of the Voiceless’, also attended by Justice (retired) Muralidhar.

Justice Lakur, who retired from the Supreme Court in December 2018, said a large number of SLPs can have regressive consequences. He said the number of such cases is rising and the situation is going from bad to worse.

In 2015-16, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court to frame guidelines on SLP but the apex court at that time refused to do so, he said, adding it was a good opportunity which the Supreme Court missed.

There are appropriate constitutional provisions regarding granting of SLP permission certificates by high courts but these are not followed properly, he said.

On the allocation of cases to Constitution benches, Justice Lokur said the power in this regard should be exercised in “a proper and impartial manner”. There should be no politics and a case should not be assigned to any particular judge, he added.

On the issue of women judges not being given proper representation in the judiciary, Justice Lokur, referring to Justice Leila Seth, said that she was a brilliant jurist but she was not elevated to the Supreme Court. On this, Justice Muralidhar said that there was a need to sensitize male judges to go beyond gender bias and ensure justice for all.

Referring to the 75th anniversary of the Supreme Court, celebrated recently, former chief justice of the Orissa High Court Muralidhar said the Supreme Court, which is seen as the most powerful court in the world, has done a lot in protecting the fundamental rights of the people, rights of women and children, rights of minorities and prisoners.

While the role of the Supreme Court in maintaining public confidence in the judiciary has been appreciated, it has also faced criticism from the public regarding some decisions, be it the Sabarimala issue, gay marriage or the recent judgment regarding the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The apex court upheld the constitutional validity of several provisions of the PMLA. Under the law, the Enforcement Directorate has the power to attach property, arrest and search an accused and seize illegal property.

Justice Muralidhar said the reality is that today the entire judiciary is under public scrutiny.

Social media reflects the public’s frustration with the judiciary, mass media debates the performance of the judiciary, he said.

Describing it as natural, he said that in the era of rapidly changing technology, public expectations from the judiciary have increased.

On the use of artificial intelligence in the judiciary, Justice Muralidhar said it will definitely help in reducing the workload on courts, management of cases, and proper disposal, etc. but the right to privacy and sensitive information falling into the hands of technology and AI will be at stake.

He also said that AI cannot acquire the right to give decisions in the legal field.
Sital Kalantry and Aparna Chandra, co-authors of the book “Court on Trial: A Data-Driven Account of the Supreme Court of India”, also participated in the session.