Editorial: The center’s delaying tactics

The delay in approving the appointment of higher court judges reflects the poor functioning of the central government and calls into question its commitment to speedy justice. The center remains on the list, although a Supreme Court committee has recommended candidates for appointment to the senior judiciary. Regrettably, the federal government declined to provide the list sent by the Supreme Court. It reflects a bitter conflict between the judiciary and the executive over how HC and SC judges are appointed, moved and promoted. The Supreme Court has rightly objected to the Centre’s uncooperative approach, observing that it has become “a means” to compel those who have been nominated to withdraw their consent to serve as judges. Notably, there are 11 cases pending appointment, some of which were approved and reaffirmed by the committee more than a year ago. This created avoidable friction between the judiciary and the executive branch. There is no doubt that successive governments – whether UPA or NDA – have had reservations about the collegiate system, but it does not make sense under the current system to create barriers to appointments that have already been decided. In 2015, the Supreme Court upheld the collegiate system, overturning the system envisaged by the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act. Law Minister Kiren Rijiju, on the other hand, has been outspoken with the NJAC for the past two months because he found Collegium’s operations “opaque”.

However, delaying tactics will not resolve the stalemate. The government should take this issue into consideration until a mutually acceptable solution is reached, and it should respect the existing system. Because, because of a judicial shortage, the fate of hundreds of thousands of litigants is at stake, and they cannot get justice quickly. The academy system is widely viewed as an oligarchy rather than an equitable entity. For the transparency of judicial operations, it needs to change. Greater transparency in the system will ensure that the best candidates apply for judicial positions. The government and the judiciary have been in a long-running standoff over the appointment of judges. That friction appeared to turn into a turf war after the Supreme Court ruled that NJAC was unconstitutional. The committee is proposed to replace the five-member committee. While the idea is part of broader judicial reforms to make appointments to higher judiciary more transparent, the Supreme Court sees it as an attempt to encroach on its domain. The process of appointing judges should be thoroughly reviewed and self-correcting mechanisms established to restore public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.