Former Chief Justice of India Justice UU Lalit on being asked if the collegium system required to be changed, answered in a firm negative. Justice Lalit was speaking on 'Why Study Law: Social Duty and Legal Responsibility' at the inaugural session of the 12th edition of ThinkEdu Conclave on February 9 2023. When a person asked him if the collegium system should be changed he said–"The...
Former Chief Justice of India Justice UU Lalit on being asked if the collegium system required to be changed, answered in a firm negative. Justice Lalit was speaking on 'Why Study Law: Social Duty and Legal Responsibility' at the inaugural session of the 12th edition of ThinkEdu Conclave on February 9 2023. When a person asked him if the collegium system should be changed he said–
"The simple answer is no. If you want reasons for it, I will take ten more minutes."
However, due to the paucity of time, he left his answer at a firm no and did not elaborate upon the reasons. The ex-CJI's comment assumes relevance in the context of increased public debate about the collegium system, especially in the context of the repeated criticism by the Central Government functionaries and also the concerns regarding the recent appointment of Justice Victoria Gowri as an additional judge of the Madras High Court.
Justice Lalit was also asked if he ever felt the "pulls and pressures" of executive while serving as the Chief Justice of India? He answered in a negative yet again and said–
"Not at all. As Chief Justice, apart from being a judge, the additional mantle that you put on is being the administrative head. According to him, he may constitute benches, list matters – that is his prerogative. The second prerogative in the administrative side of course is the collegium meeting. He's the one who calls the meeting, makes the proposal as to who shall be the judges etc. On neither of these two fronts, I have had any kind of instructions or even indirect suggestions coming from the executive at any juncture."
While elaborating further on his tenure as a Chief Justice he said–
"Never in the history of Supreme Court, more than two Constitution benches had ever sat together. In my tenure of 74 days, I went by the mathematical calculation. We were 30 judges to begin with. I divided 30 by 5 and said that possible 6 constitution benches combinations could sit. In my time all six benches were constituted. And at a time on a particular day, three Constitution benches were sitting together simultaneously."
He stated that he had absolutely no regrets in his tenure and he delivered on all three promises that he had made. On this, he said–
"What happens is that during Covid time especially, our disposal had taken a back seat. We were more into making ourselves available through virtual mode. What happens in virtual mode is that matter which is capable of being disposed of in three minutes may take 10 minutes. Because there are communication gaps and defects. So our disposal which was 60 matters a day on Mondays and Fridays which are miscellaneous days had come down to almost 30 or 35. That left a gap between the filing of the matter and the disposal. So we were on the negative side. Priorities which I had were listing of all matters, disposal to be more than filing, more constitution benches. The death sentence matters can only get listed before three-judge benches. So when I constituted Constitution bench, a Constitution bench has those three judges plus two judges. So in that way I listed death sentence matter before the Constitution benches and doubled up the benches. With that, many death sentence matters were also listed."
While promoting practical experience in the area of law, he said–
"Study of law must not be confined to universities and colleges, but must be open to the masses and the societal apparatus. It is time that emphasis should be given to internships where students will have to work with rural populations, interact with them, understand their problems and the challenges faced by them."
Accordingly, he called for mandatory internships to be introduced for law students to work in rural areas with the rural population.
When asked why he chose to become a judge instead of a lawyer, he stated that while money was important, after a point, it loses significance in life and one ultimately needs something which gives them satisfaction. He added–
"Today my third innings have begun where I am now a visiting professor in some of the law colleges. That's how I intend to give back to the society."