Is the Supreme Court facing an institutional crisis?

Is the Supreme Court facing an institutional crisis?

Context:

Presently, the Supreme Court is facing an institutional crisis on account of the most ferocious attack ever on the judiciary by the executive.

Present crisis in Indian Judiciary:

• Corruption in the judiciary.
• The executive wants a judiciary that is beholden to it.
• Politicians and governments influence judges.
• Shortfall of judges.
• The most telling indicator of the assault on the judiciary is the non-appointment of judges.
• Absence of separate Commercial Courts.
• Lack of expertise
• Poor dispute resolution mechanism.
• Frequent transfer of judges.
• Lack of transparency.
• Expensive and delayed justice
• Frequent adjournments and indiscriminate use of writ jurisdiction.

Second Judges Case:

• In 1993, through Second Judges case, the Supreme Court appropriated the power to appoint judges to the High Courts and the Supreme Court by interpreting the word “consultation” in Article 124(2) of the Constitution to mean concurrence of the Chief Justice of India for each and every appointment to the higher judiciary.
• The Third Judges case, was a reference to the court from the then President of India seeking a clarification on certain aspects of the judicial appointments system, which is also known as the collegiums system.

Judiciary versus executive:

• From the very long, the executive has been ‘itching’ to wrest power back from the judges. The discourse on purported judicial activism, the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 that lapsed on the dissolution of the 15the Lok Sabha, and the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act(NJAC), 2014 that was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court with a majority of judges as violative of the basic structure doctrine.

Present controversy:

• The registration of an FIR against a retired judge of the Odisha High Court and some other persons, for allegedly attempting to influence through extraneous means proceedings in the Supreme Court.
• In K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991), the Supreme Court laid down that no criminal case shall be registered under Section 154, Cr.P.C. against judge of the High Court, Chief Justice of High Court or judge of the Supreme Court unless the Chief Justice of India is consulted in the matter. If the CJI himself is the person whom the allegations of criminal misconduct are received, the government shall consult any other judge or judges of the Supreme Court.

Way ahead:

• Increase the number of judges, as per the international standards.
• Increase in the number of judges.
• Enhancing the productivity of existing court infrastructure and human resources.
• Productivity enhancement for handling cases more efficiently, that is, case flow management (CFM).
• Creation of judicial infrastructure, all States and Union territories should have high courts.
• Mechanism of accountability of judges.
• Well-trained and specialized should be placed mainly in subordinate and district court, from where huge appeals pops up. All India Judicial commission could be a solution
• Increase and strengthen alternative dispute mechanisms like fast track courts, mobile courts, commercial courts
• More importantly tussle over MoP should be done away by improving the channels of communication between executive and legislature
• Usage of IT tools should be promoted, well integrated database across the judicial system reduces the time involved
• Fair promotion of judges and scrapping the collegiums system.
• Better case management and procedural reforms can go a long way in reducing case pendency.
• Increase the number of national law schools to get even more lawyers into the system.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court is considered as a temple of justice. The Constitution describes the judiciary as one of the three pillars of our democracy. This expression is an embodiment of the spirit of the highest court of the country. It is mostly the Supreme Court, along with the High Courts, that comes to the rescue of the common person and ensures that his or her faith in the rule of law is not shaken. Therefore, it is necessary that judiciary should be free from any political interference and work independently.