On August 7, a parliamentary committee submitted its 133rd report to the Rajya Sabha, raising concerns over the inadequate representation of minorities in the judiciary, and recommended increasing the age of retirement for Supreme Court and high court judges by assessing the quality of their judgments.
—
A parliamentary committee has submitted its report on ‘Judicial Processes and Their Reforms’, expressing concerns over the “diversity deficit” in appointment of judges to the higher judiciary.
The report has been submitted by the department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, headed by the Bharatiya Janata Party member of Parliament (MP) Sushil Kumar Modi.
The report says that the representation of the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Schedule Tribes (STs), other backward classes (OBCs), women and minorities in the higher judiciary is far below the desired levels and does not reflect the social diversity of the country
The report states that since the Supreme Court Collegium is responsible for making recommendations for appointment to the higher judiciary, the onus is on them to ensure adequate representation for underrepresented sections of the society.
Of the 604 high court judges appointed from 2018 till July 17, 2023, 458 belong to the ‘general’ category. The committee notes that as of now, data related to the social status of high court judges are available only from 2018 onwards.
It has recommended that the department of justice find ways and means to collect relevant data in respect of all judges presently serving in the Supreme Court and high courts across the country.
“For doing this, if required, necessary amendments may be brought in the respective Acts/service Rules of the judges,” the report reads.
It has also desired that while making recommendations for appointments to the higher judiciary, both the Supreme Court and the high court collegiums should recommend an adequate number of women candidates and candidates from marginalised sections of the society, including minorities.
On regional Benches of the Supreme Court
The committee has also stated that the demand for having regional Benches of the Supreme Court is about “access to justice” which is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.
“There has been a long-standing demand for having regional Benches of the highest court in the country for taking justice to the doorstep of the common citizen. The regional Benches may also be seen as a solution to the overflowing caseload of the judiciary and to reduce the litigation cost to the common man,” the parliamentary report reads.
It adds that the Delhi-centric Supreme Court causes a big hurdle for those litigants who are coming from far-flung areas of the country.
“First, there is a language problem for them, and then finding lawyers, the cost of litigation, travel and staying in Delhi makes justice very costly. This committee has also been recommending for a long time the establishment of regional Benches of the Supreme Court in the country.
“The committee still holds the view that the Supreme Court of India may invoke Article 130 of the Constitution for establishing its regional Benches at four or five locations in the country,” the report reads.
An interpretation of the Constitution and constitutional matters, the report says, may be dealt with at Delhi and the regional Benches may decide appellate matters. However, the appellate Benches may not be made as another layer of the judiciary by treating their decisions as final.
Increase the retirement age of judges
The committee has recommended increasing the age of retirement of judges, in sync with the increase in the longevity and advancement in medical sciences, leading to improved health of the population.
However, the proposed increase in retirement age should be considered along with other measures to ensure transparency and accountability in the appointments to the higher judiciary, and a concerted effort should be made to fill up the existing vacancies.
The committee has disagreed with the government that an increase in the retirement age of judges will lead to similar demands from civil servants and has considered it to be unfounded.
Earlier, the committee had also recommended in its 39th report on April 29, 2010 to increase the retirement age of high court judges from 62 to 65, to be at par with the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court.
No reason for judges not to disclose their assets in public
The committee has opined that the Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that the public has a right to know the assets of those standing for elections as MPs or members of legislative assemblies (MLAs). When so, it belies logic that judges do not need to disclose their assets and liabilities.
“Anybody holding public office and drawing a salary from the exchequer should mandatorily furnish annual returns of their property,” the committee states.
It takes note of the decision of the Supreme Court taken on September 8, 2009 to resolve to put the declaration of assets on the Supreme Court’s website on or before October 21, 2009, purely on a voluntary basis.
“However, to date, the website of the Supreme Court contains data with respect to 55 former chief justices of India and judges of the Supreme Court, with the last update as of March 31, 2018.
So far as high courts are concerned, presently only five high courts have data on their website[s] related to the declaration of assets by a few judges of [the] concerned high courts,” the report highlights.
