Appointment of High Court Judges

The rumour that ‘the list’ sent by Chief Justice Lokur (as he then was) is back has now found its way into print. This surely gives credence to the whisper that has been making the rounds in the corridors of the state High Court. The retirement of Justice Krishna Mohan Reddy the other day has opened the floodgates literally. With another ten to leave in a few months the strength of the court is now its weakness.
It has been a while since the chief Justice has had his cabinet in the court. True the word cabinet could be a misnomer for very often the judges appointed on the recommendations of a Chief Justice outlast by a mile their respective tenures. The Chief Justice is after all at the November of his career in the High court and he is looking in variably for someone knocking 50.
The total lack of transparency in the making of the appointments gives the rumour mills enough currency. Years of our democracy has led many institutions to question their in house patterns and utilities. It is well conceived that one should not tinker with the judicial wing in a hurry or with a hidden agenda. However the iron curtain approach does little to the credibility of the institution. All inertia is in the interest of the status quo. There have been a few debates on how the selection process must be and who should be made judges.
Unfortunately while the debate goes on, appointments are made by a ‘collegium’ When the recommendations of the collegium is aborted, by process or design then one begins to ask questions. Let’s for instance take the list suggested by the Collegium that preceded, the one headed by Justice Lokur. If the appointment is so collegium centric is the rejection the whim of the next tier? Is there any format of accountability? After all the earlier list is send to contain the name of certain principal law officers of the state. How come the list did not see the light of day? Where was the error? Was it with the recommendation? Was the collegium? Such questions are bound to be asked by those who are concerned with the institution. Those who have a vested interest (and who does not?) may be silent in public. The questions are however asked and since they are not addressed to any one in particular, no one wants to take it up. It is however disturbing that the Collegium makes a recommendation and the named candidates (euphemism for the beneficiaries!) do not get the call. The area of rejection or derailment may be the political corridors or the judicial verandas but they all point to the fact that the three top judges of the court have erred or have failed. Both are disturbing factors. And now we have a list that is moving in circles. It appears that the state government has not been consulted. This raises another question: If that is the procedure, then how come the high legal minds missed the trick. Are they not the ones who sit in judgement about section processes, fair play and the other factors that go in the decision making of a proper recruitment?
Those in the highest echelons of the judicial system must become more accountable. They taking liberties will work to the peril of the system and the presumptions in their favour. A few repeats and it could stare at all as a crisis of credibility. They must realise that they live in glass houses and are seated on fragile pedestals. They may be indifferent to the sensitivities. Will they be willing to give such space to the other wings? Thoughts to ponder, surely time to think.

L. Ravichander.