Present Model Of Appointing Judges Is Near Perfect : Former CJI UU Lalit Defends Collegium System

Former Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit opined that there is no better system available at present to appoint judges than the existing collegium system. 

Speaking at a seminar organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), the former Chief Justice of India elaborated on the different levels of scrutiny and consultations which are undertaken in the process of judges appointments and commented that it is a "near perfect model".

"According to me, we don't have a system better than the collegium system. If we don't have anything qualitatively better than the collegium system, naturally, we must work towards making it possible that this collegium system survives. Today the model as per which we work is a near perfect model", Justice Lalit said. The judges are best persons to decide if the candidate is worthy of appointment.

The comments of the recently retired Chief Justice of India assume relevance in the context of the ongoing debates about the collegium system, after critical comments made by Union Law Minister and the Vice President.

Speaking from his experience as a member of the collegium (he mentioned that he has seen at least 325 names), Justice Lalit said that the recommendations are filtered through selection process which comprises inputs from the levels of the state government and central government.

Also, the Supreme Court collegium consults the judges in the Supreme Court who are familiar with that particular High Court. 

"After this rigorous process names are cleared. The matter then goes to central government. Their inputs are actually taken on account at earlier level but they may have something to elaborate upon. Those objections normally should come back to collegium to reconsider. Initial recommendation by SC need not be unanimous. It could be by majority vote. But reiteration has to be unanimous. At the level of reiteration, great consideration is placed. Reiteration is not mechanical. The matters are considered thread bare", he explained.

He cited the example of an appointment which was not initially recommended by the collegium. "The government said please reconsider. The subsequent collegium accepted and the person was sworn in as judge", he added.

Justice Lalit said that the judiciary is in a better position to judge the merits of the candidates, having seen them perform over the years. The executive may not be in position to make such an assessment. 

"Who have seen these judges year after year? High court judiciary. So are they not in the best possible position to consider the merit? Now take the other side. Those who come to HC directly appointed, those persons are those who regularly practice before HC. Day in and day out your performance is judged by a body of judges", he said.

The professional practice of the candidate, the type of cases conducted and the number of reported judgments, etc. are taken into account. He mentioned that while considering a candidate, about 1100 judgments authored by him were considered. "That is the kind of rigorousness bestowed in the matter", he said.

The income parameter is also taken into account to ensure that persons with professional competence are considered.

So when the file reaches the Supreme Court collegium, it has inputs from various functionaries and on various aspects relating to the candidate.

"Therefore, when the matter reaches the SC collegium, there is a full perfect situation whether the name be accepted or not to be accepted.  It's not as if it is a whimsical exercise taken by someone. It's a full proof arrangement".

"Now imagine, if the executive will be in a better position to select judges? How will someone sitting here will have the knowledge to select a judge in Kerala, Manipur or somewhere else? You have to have local inputs which come from there. You must know if the advocate is good or not. The judges are best persons to decide if the man commands that kind of respect. Out of these two systems, according to me, we don't have a system better than the collegium system. If we don't have anything qualitatively better than the collegium system, naturally, we must work towards making it possible that this collegium system survives".

"Today the model as per which we work is a near perfect model. Of course there can be infirmities. That is why the recommendations made by HC- 60 or 70, got dropped. Because we had the benefit of consultee judges. HC Collegium may say something but there are judges who come from those HCs and may have other opinions. That's the kind of objective analysis we do at the level of SC collegium".

"Once the system has these checks and balances, I don't think any interference is required. Through this process, we've been able to have judges for many years. Once the law has been laid down, according to me, there should be no judicial interference on this. Whatever be the objections, they must be raised as early as possible, preferably within 6 weeks. Then whatever the Collegium decides must be followed", he said while concluding his address.

Senior Advocates Aditya Sondhi, Dushyant Dave, Professor Faizan Mustafa and Professor Mohan Gopal also spoke during the first session of the seminar which was on the topic "Executive Interference in Judicial Appointments". Advocate Prashant Bhushan gave introductory remarks for the session. Advocate Cheryl Dsouza was the moderator for the session.

Live-updates from the seminar can be accessed here .

The video can be watched here :