Law Ministry Accepts Parliamentary Standing Committee's Recommendation To Establish Regional Benches Of Supreme Court
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice on Wednesday presented the 144th Report outlining the response of the Union Law Ministry to the recommendations made for judicial reforms in the 133rd Report of the Committee. The 133rd report was presented before the Rajya Sabha on August 7, 2023, and tabled before the Lok Sabha on the same day.The Union...
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice on Wednesday presented the 144th Report outlining the response of the Union Law Ministry to the recommendations made for judicial reforms in the 133rd Report of the Committee. The 133rd report was presented before the Rajya Sabha on August 7, 2023, and tabled before the Lok Sabha on the same day.
The Union Law Ministry has accepted the Parliamentary Standing Committee's recommendation to establish regional benches of the Supreme Court throughout India and to publish annual reports of all High Court and the Supreme Court.
The 22 recommendations put forward by the Committee in its 133rd Report include the establishment of regional Supreme Court benches, increase in the retirement age of High Court and Supreme Court judges, greater social diversity in judicial appointments, and reassessment of post-retirement assignments for judges.
In the report titled '144th Report on Action Taken on the 133rd Report of the Committee on the Subject "Judicial Processes and Their Reforms"' (Action Taken Report), the recommendations have been categorized under four chapters based on the government's response:
Chapter I: Recommendations accepted by the government
1. Regional benches of Supreme Court
The committee recommended establishing four or five regional benches of the Supreme Court across the country. Regional benches may help with the overflowing caseload of the judiciary.
Further, the committee observed, “the Delhi-centric Supreme Court causes a big hurdle for those litigants who are coming from far-flung areas of the country. First, there is a language problem for them, and then finding lawyers, the cost of litigation, travel, and staying in Delhi makes justice very costly…The interpretation of Constitution and Constitutional matters may be dealt at Delhi and the regional benches may decide appellate matters.”.
As per the Action Taken Report, the government has twice referred the matter for the opinion of the Attorney General. Despite committee's recommendation for invoking Article 130 of the Constitution, which empowers the Chief Justice of India to designate sitting places for the Supreme Court, the respective Attorney Generals in 2010 and 2016, deemed the proposal impermissible and potentially detrimental to the court's unity and integrity. The matter remains sub-judice before a Constitutional Bench. “The Supreme Court has been consistently rejecting the proposal for setting up of the Benches of Supreme Court at a place outside Delhi.”
2. Preparation and publication of annual reports by courts
The committee recommended regular publication of Annual Reports by the Supreme Court and all High Courts. While the Supreme Court has been actively publishing its report, not all High Courts publish one.
The Action Taken Report states that the Department of Justice, on June 19, 2023, urged the Chief Justice of India and Chief Justices of all the High Courts to follow the format set by the Orissa High Court in order to ensure uniformity in reporting standards.
Chapter II: Recommendations not pursued by the committee
1. Increasing retirement age of judges
In light of increased life expectancy and advancements in medical sciences, the committee proposed amendments in the relevant articles of the Constitution to increase the retirement age of judges to ensure alignment with evolving demographics. Currently, a Judge of the Supreme Court has to retire at the age of 65, while a High Court Judge retires at the age of 62.
The government said that increase in retirement age of High Court would “bring parity in the retirement of Judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court and reduce attraction among High Court Judges for getting elevated to Supreme Court.” Further, bringing parity in the retirement age of the Supreme Court and High Court Judges may result in consequential demand for increase in retirement age of the Supreme Court Judges.
The government opined that extending retirement age will give benefit of extended years of service to non-deserving cases and lead to non-performing and under-performing judges to continue. “There will be no limit to it and in future, there may efforts to increase the age further. Besides this, other public agencies i.e. Tribunals, Commissions, etc. may also follow suit starting a chain reaction”, it said.
2. Performance evaluation of judges
The committee also suggested reassessing judges' performance before extending their tenure due to an increased retirement age. However, the government said that the performance evaluation should not be linked to extension of retirement age as it may result in erosion of parliamentary powers by empowering the Supreme Court Collegium for the evaluation. Further, it can cause undue favouritism, and make judges susceptible to pressures, thus impinging on their performance as impartial judges.
3. Vacancies in courts
The committee noted that long vacations are not the only cause of heavy backlog of cases in the judiciary, and high vacancies in the judiciary contribute to this backlog,
The government explained that while efforts are made to fill vacancies promptly, they continue to arise due to retirements, resignations, elevations, and increases in the judge's strength.
Chapter III: Recommendations in respect of which the committee did not accept the reasons given by the government and reiterated its recommendation
1. Social diversity in judicial appointments
The committee, pointing out the 'diversity deficit' in the judiciary, stressed the importance of adequate representation from marginalized sections of society. The committee noted that representation of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Women, and Minorities falls below desired levels and data provided by the government indicates a declining trend in representation.
While there is no provision for reservation in judicial appointments at the High Court and Supreme Court levels, the committee said that adequate representation of diverse sections of society would “strengthen the trust, credibility, and acceptability of the Judiciary among the citizens.”
The committee recommended that Supreme Court and High Court Collegiums should recommend an adequate number of women and candidates from marginalized sections of society and incorporate this provision into the Memoranda of Procedure (MoP) for judicial appointments. As per the Action Taken Report, the government, in its communication dated January 06, 2023 to the Chief Justice of India, has emphasized the need to finalize the MoP.
From October 31, 2022 to November 8, 2023, 141 judges were appointed, including 5 each from SC and ST categories, 20 from OBC category, 8 from Minority groups, and 22 Women. While the judiciary initiates proposals for judicial appointments, the government said it is “committed to social diversity in the appointment of Judges in the Higher Judiciary”, and encourages Chief Justices of High Courts to consider suitable candidates from marginalized sections when sending proposals for appointments.
The committee urged the Ministry to continue efforts to expedite the process of collecting data on judges' social status and to forward it for examination once completed. Additionally, it advised the Ministry to pursue the Supreme Court to expedite the finalization of the MoP.
2. Post retirement assignments
Noting objections raised by various stakeholders, the committee suggested reassessment of the practice of appointing retired judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts to positions in bodies or institutions funded by public funds to ensure their impartiality.
The government responded that appointments of retired judges to various constitutional posts, commissions, and tribunals are made by different ministries and departments according to relevant rules established by the respective appointing authorities. These public bodies require the expertise and experience of the retired judges, the government said.
However, the committee suggested that despite the existing procedures, the entire range of issues related to such appointments of retired judges should be comprehensively studied again and reviewed by the Ministry.
3. Vacations in Supreme Court and High Courts
Terming court vacations a colonial relic, the committee recommended a staggered approach to judicial leave to ensure continuous court operations in order to address high pendency and the inconvenience faced by litigants. The committee endorsed former Chief Justice of India RM Lodha's suggestion of staggered vacations where individual judges take leave at different times throughout the year.
The government said that it has forwarded this recommendation to the Supreme Court and the Registrar Generals of the High Courts for their response. The committee urged the Department of Justice to follow up with the concerned authorities to expedite their response.
Chapter IV: Recommendations with pending government replies
1. Mandatory declaration of assets by judges of Supreme Court and High Courts
The committee in the 133rd Report proposed legislation to mandate annual declaration of assets by judges to promote transparency and accountability.
Draft rules are being prepared under the High Court Judges Act and Supreme Court Judges Act to establish a procedure for asset declaration.
The committee urged “fast-tracked” consultations with the Supreme Court Registry to finalize the rules for asset declaration.