The Judiciary: A Pillar of Indian Democracy... In Dire Need of Reform

The Indian judicial system is independent and impartial. Rather, this is the only pillar of Indian democracy in which all Indians have full faith and confidence. This faith is amply demonstrated by the fact that every day many new cases are being heard in courts all over the country. The Indian judiciary is thus one of the strongest pillars of Indian democracy.

The Indian judiciary is independent and separate from the government and the legislature. The judges of Indian courts have maintained very high standards of judicial integrity. This fact has also been recognized by the international business community. This is one of the main reasons multinational corporations have been entering into joint ventures with Indian businesses and are investing billions of dollars in India to set up not only huge industrial units and develop town-ships, but also develop India’s infrastructure.

However, some people feel that the justice delivery system in India is expensive and time consuming. It is estimated that there are about 250 million cases pending in the various courts in India. This huge backlog is causing delays in getting justice. Some say “justice delayed is justice denied.” For speedier justice, some litigants are indulging in corrupt practices. The high cost of litigation is mainly due to the exorbitant fees charged by lawyers.

In the past couple of years, few allegations of corruption in the judiciary have been reported in the newspapers (the Sumit Mukherjee scandal of the Delhi High Court; the club scandal of the Punjab High Court; the Ghaziababad Provident Fund scandal, etc.). The Dalai Lama, a Nobel laureate, has equated corruption in the Indian judiciary with “pocket money.” Indian Vice President Hamid Ansari stated in his valedictory address at the International Conference of Jurists, “The challenge to the supremacy of the rule of law is elitist behavior. National and international media is full of reports of how the elite are able to subvert the rule of law with money or influence. A large swathe of society and polity even accept this situation as a way of life.” He also stated that corruption “shakes the legitimacy of the state, erodes sovereignty of the state and its capacity to exercise sovereign functions including ensuring law and order for the citizens.”

A study conducted by the Centre for Media Studies in 20051 revealed “during the last one year, three-fifths (61 percent) of respondents had paid money to lawyers, whereas 29 percent had paid money to court officials, and 15 percent paid money to middle men to get their work done.” This study had made many valuable suggestions for reforming the judiciary. One of these was that a new judge, before taking up the appointment, should declare his or her assets and liabilities. A couple of months ago the Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Central Information Commission under the Right to Information (RTI ) Act directing the Supreme Court of India to declare the assets of its judges. Against this judgment an appeal is pending before the Supreme Court. In spite of the pending appeal, the Supreme Court judges have now declared their assets.

In regard to corruption in the judiciary, the Bar Association of Bangalore recently sparked a controversy about the contemplated elevation of their chief judge as a judge of the Supreme Court of India. They alleged that the said judge had accumulated huge wealth, which was disproportionate to his means, when he was a judge of the subordinate judiciary. Senior advocates of the Supreme Court and also other state bar associations voiced their concern on this issue. Consequently, the said judge was not elevated (the allegations of corruption against the said judge have yet to be established). In the past, peer pressure has worked in ensuring that a judge against whom allegations of misconduct are established voluntarily resigns from his post.

Only the Indian Parliament can remove a Supreme Court judge or any state’s high court for misconduct through the process of impeachment. In 1993, a motion was moved in the parliament to remove Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court of India by way of impeachment. It was alleged that Justice Ramaswamy had spent huge sums of government money on the renovation of his official residence. This impeachment motion, however, failed in the Lok Sabha as the members of the ruling party abstained from voting on the said motion.

Last year, the chief justice of India recommended to the prime minister the impeachment of Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court for misconduct, alleging that prior to his elevation he had appropriated Rs 3.2 million as a court-appointed receiver in 1993. This motion was moved in the Rajya Sabha and its chairman has instituted a threemember committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal of Justice Soumitra Sen is sought.

The Right to Information Act and also investigative journalism in the print and electronic media are proving to be very effective tools in not only curbing corruption, but also ensuring transparency. Recently, the Central Information Commission, set up under the RTI Act, has even directed the Supreme Court to disclose the reasons for appointing three judges to the Supreme Court in supersession of three senior chief justices of high courts.

To ensure that the people’s faith in the judiciary is preserved and that the rule of law is not shattered, immediate remedial measures need to be undertaken:

• Set up more fast-track courts;
• Frequent setting of Lok Adalats;
• Set up an All-India Judicial Service similar to that of the Indian Administrative Service;
• All courts should use digital technology and be converted into “e-courts” for speedier delivery of justice (India has its first paperless e-court in the High Court of Delhi);
• The provision for summary trials, plea bargaining, compounding procedure code to be utilized more frequently;
• Setting up of new courts and the appointment of retired honest judges on a contractual basis;
• Shift-working of courts;
• Setting up of more specialized courts/tribunals; and
• Setting up of circuitbenches not only of the state high courts, but also of the Supreme Court of India.

It has also been reported that the government of India has initiated various measures to introduce reforms in the judiciary. It has proposed to enact a new law – “The Judges Standards and Accountability Act” – which would make the judiciary more accountable. This law would reassure the people that the Indian judiciary is above board. Simultaneously, the Indian government proposes to set up Gram Nyayalayas (village courts) under the Gram Nyayalayas Act of 2008 to make justice available to the rural population in their villages.

These and other reforms would ensure a speedier justice delivery system and would also reassure the people all over the world that the Indian judicial system is independent, impartial and upholds the rule of law. Rather, this is the only pillar of the Indian Democracy in which not only all Indians, but also all multinational businesses that are carrying on industrial and business activities in India, have full faith and confidence.