Time to take CJI's word seriously

It is unfortunate that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) had to go to the extent of issuing a warning to the government over the delay in the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary. It is an unprecedented situation with Justice T S Thakur threatening to issue a judicial order from the Supreme Court to get its recommendations on judicial appointments accepted. Any further delay or refusal of the government to comply with such an order, if it is issued, would amount to contempt of court and can lead to punishment of the law minister and others concerned with the appointments. The CJI’s words that the government is trying to bring the judiciary to a grinding halt are an indictment, and he has clearly indicated that the court will not take it any longer. Justice Thakur would not have talked in such tough language unless he felt that the delay was deliberate.

The government is sleeping over a list 74 names sent by the Collegium of the Supreme Court in January for appointment as judges. There are 478 vacant posts of high court judges in a total bench strength of 1,079. This shows that about 44% of the posts are vacant and filling them up is an urgent requirement. There is a perception that the Centre is going slow on it because it is unhappy with the Supreme Court’s verdict last year striking down the government’s plan to set up a National Judicial Appointments Commission. Since then, the court has asked the government to redraft the memorandum of procedure for appointments, but rejected the government’s proposal to keep the power to veto the collegium’s recommendations on the ground of national security. It is true that the present collegium system is opaque and unaccountable and not suited for a democracy. The executive should have its due role in the appointment of judges. But the differences between the court and the government over the matter should not have led to the present logjam.

The government’s dillydallying amounts to putting pressure on the court in the most undesirable manner. A confrontation between the judiciary and the executive on the matter can only be damaging. It is also not in public interest because the delay in the appointment of judges will further aggravate the problem of slow disposal of cases. The government and the court should bridge their differences in a spirit of cooperation and through consultations. The prime minister had offered to take an initiative on this but it has not happened. The CJI’s cautionary words should be taken seriously and the situation should not be allowed to get out of hand.