When Supreme Court judges invoked divine interference to save the situation.
The year that is coming to a close has not been one of the finest years in the annals of the judiciary. Allegations of financial irregularities enveloped judges of several high courts, leading to transfers. Special tribunals like the Competition Commission of India, the National Company Law Tribunal and the tribunals under the Money Laundering Act were stuck in litigative mud. In at least two orders, the Supreme Court lamented the ineptitude of government counsel leading to losses in government revenue. Referring to politicians, the Supreme Court remarked, “Nothing can save this country. Only God can help…” On top of all this, there was an apparent uneasiness in the relations between the judiciary and the executive. Even the Speaker, who is a lawyer, joined in the criticism of the judiciary.
Last week, the government presented in Parliament some 30 reasons for the poor performance of the judiciary, leading to over 30 million pending cases. (One property suit pending in the Calcutta High Court for 175 years could claim the world record for the longest-running case.) But the judiciary has its own list of woes. Starved of funds, thousands of posts of judges are unfilled, not to talk of infrastructure and secretarial staff. It was only two months ago that the Employees PF Appellate Tribunal, a national body, moved to a proper building from an Ambassador car. A few months ago, a judge of the Rajasthan High Court confessed that he was not able to deliver judgements because he was not provided with a stenographer. According to Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan, the country needs 10,000 more courts to meet the world norm.
Though public interest cases with different political hues created news from the Supreme Court, the year will not be remembered for any significant judgement, least of all on the economic front. Land acquisitions for special economic zones and factories were a hot issue throughout the year, but the Supreme Court did not give a final hearing to the batch of petitions raising the issue. As in several cases, it is time, not the court, which renders litigation redundant.
The indifference of the government to update labour laws is matched only by the reluctance of the Supreme Court to decide questions which it undertook to do long ago. Just two examples will do. The definition of ‘industry’ in the Industrial Disputes Act has been a sore point since 1978 as it was said to be not “comprehensive, clear and conclusive” (State of UP vs Jai Bir Singh). But the court has merely referred the question to a larger bench three years ago. Another issue is the right of the employer to close down his establishment. Even after nearly a dozen amendments and ten times more judicial pronouncements, the field is as murky as ever. The status of temporary workers, absorption of casual labour and reinstatement with back wages are other labour riddles which created a lot of heat, with inadequate light.
One recurrent dispute before the high courts and the Supreme Court involves government tenders. Though the Supreme Court has clarified several times that it would not intervene in such disputes, such rows refuse to go away. In the Siemens case last month, the court made it clear that it would examine tenders only if the complaint involved illegality, gross irrationality or procedural impropriety. It would not go into the fairness of a policy.
At times, the Supreme Court seemed to speak in different voices, especially in public interest litigation. In Common Cause vs Union of India, the judges differed in their perspective about the PIL movement. One of the judges, with whom his colleague differed, remarked that much of PIL was really blackmail. “The court must not embarrass the administrative authorities and must realise that administrative authorities have expertise in the field of administration while the court does not. The country can ill afford to be governed through court decrees. Can the court issue a general directive that poverty be abolished because it violates Article 21 of the Constitution?” he asked.
One clearly positive development under the present Chief Justice of India is the partial lifting of the black veil over the functioning of the judiciary. There is now a PRO for the Supreme Court, a quarterly publication which provides data relating to all-India judiciary and case flow management. These steps are supposed to take care of the ouster of jurisdiction of the Right to Information Act. Moreover, the CJI uses the media more often to answer criticism of the judiciary. The cyber revolution has brought most aspects of the courts accessible to the public and reduced corruption. In the end, it is the judiciary, not the government, which deflects the ‘last straw’ from its overwrought back.
