- If one thing that still resonated with the citizens’ overwhelming consent in the country is the way they look up to the higher judiciary as the final front to not only seek justice but also impartial hearing and relief. The higher judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, is held in high esteem for this very reason as the common man firmly believes whatever wrongs he/she may have encountered would be addressed in the hallowed portals. To its credit, the SC has stepped in whenever the situation demanded even at the cost of being bandied against as an unwarranted overreach and unacceptable judicial activism. The executive and the legislature have left no opportunity to go waste in rising the red flag but the higher judiciary has remained firm.
PC: Bar & Bench
- However, we all know how different levels of the judiciary are burdened with the mounting number of unresolved cases which runs into crores. Even the Supreme Court is saddled with thousands of cases waiting to be disposed of. The less said the better about the lower levels of the judiciary as thousands of those under trial wait for justice. Of course, efforts are underway to strengthen the judiciary at every level but the increasing number of cases simply does not offer speedy delivery of justice for the common citizens. While the need of the hour is to ensure the speedy disposal of cases, a worrying phenomenon being observed over the last few months concerning the Supreme Court or high court deserves to be addressed holistically.
- The concerned citizens would have observed how every few months a Supreme Court or high court judge recusing from a case makes news. For the uninitiated, there have been several recusals in the Bombay high court of late. Last week one of the judges in SC recused from hearing Bilkis Bano’s challenge against the premature release of 11 murder-gangrape convicts. Ordinarily, judges recuse over conflict of interest. Sometimes, litigants point this out to a judge, who may not be themselves aware of such a conflict. Judges then decide whether to recuse or not. There are also instances where despite a judge revealing what can be construed as interest both parties didn’t fear bias. It intrigues one why this phenomenon is repeating time and again.
PC: Rahul Kumar
- While some judges mention in open court why they are recusing, often judges don’t give reasons. For instance, the NJAC judgment, in which one of the judges’ continuances on the five-judge bench was challenged, saw different shades of judicial opinion. Stating reasons for recusal forestalls all sorts of conjectures about the judge. It would curb attempts at forum shopping, which also involves attempts to force a judge to recuse without specifying reasons. When this happens, rumours are bound to fly thick and fast in legal circles over political pressures, etc. Conversely, if rules mandating judges to specify reasons for recusal were framed, every judge would have to comply and the system would greatly benefit from the resultant transparency.
