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.