When Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati of the Supreme Court pioneered the concept of public interest litigation in India in the 1980s, little did they know about the far-reaching consequences of their initiative. Whereas political executives are yet to digest ‘judicial activism’, members of civil society, who were not directly involved in a particular case, got a chance to agitate in the court on matters relating to public interest.
Those who suffered silently in organised violence rarely got justice in the past. In March 1970, when the brothers of the Sain family of Burdwan were brutally killed by the Left cadres, the violence shook the conscience of the nation. In August 1971, nearly 100 youths having allegiance to leftists were killed over a span of 30 hours in Calcutta’s Baranagar. The culprits were never brought to book and the families never got back the bodies of the dead. In April 1982, 16 monks and a nun of Ananda Marga were dragged out of their vehicles simultaneously in three different places on and around Bijon Setu in Calcutta in broad daylight, beaten to death, and then set on fire, sending shivers down the spine of civil society. None of these incidents witnessed an effective inquiry; no one was booked; the administration colluded with the goons to sweep the crimes under the carpet.
If any such horror were to take place today, sympathisers of the sufferers would have filed a PIL in high court, seeking a court-monitored inquiry by the Central investigating agency so as to book the propagators of the crime. That’s the power of the PIL, which gave the requisite strength and direction to the judiciary. There have been so many riots in past but for the first time after the Delhi riot (1984) and, subsequently, after the riot at Godhra in Gujarat (2002), those who indulged in organising the violence were booked. We have heard of so many cases of corruption at the highest levels; for the first time, the all-powerful former chief ministers of Bihar and Haryana had to go to jail after their conviction on charges of corruption. If these were indications of ‘judicial activism’, civil society looks forward to such activism from the judiciary at a time when the bitterness of competitive politics has divided society.
In a bid to control the judiciary, political executives are critical of the collegiums system that empowers the Supreme Court to select the judges of the higher judiciary. There is sufficient scope to check the integrity of the persons proposed to be appointed in the existing process by the government through the Central Bureau of Investigation. Yet, political bosses demand that the system of ‘appointing judges by the judges’ should end. If the collegium system is replaced by a system of selection by the Union government, there is every possibility that the people’s perception of the judiciary being neutral will be jeopardised.
However, this does not mean that everything is fine with the judicial system. We need to have an objective assessment of the productivity of the higher judiciary. Do we need so many long vacations in the courts when nearly 60,000 cases are reportedly pending in the Supreme court itself ? It is learnt that the apex court has 193 working days in a year; high courts have 210 days. While assessing productivity, we need not go by the practices being followed in Australia or in the United States of America. We should have our own norms as in any other profession. There have been numerous initiatives by the government towards the computerization of court work and for making virtual hearings a reality. More needs to be done in this sphere to raise the output of the judges.
Judges are amply compensated for their notable contributions. Society may thus legitimately expect that the members of the higher judiciary also give their best to ensure quick disposal of cases without compromising the quality of verdicts. Unfortunately, the age-old proverb, ‘justice delayed is justice denied’, remains relevant today.
Gautam Bhattacharya is a former civil servant
