Supreme Court Needs Proper Roster Ruling Out Manual Intervention Of CJI: Justice Oka

Former Supreme Court Judge Justice Abhay S Oka has said that the Supreme Court needs to introduce a proper roster system that rules out the possibility of manual intervention by the Chief Justice of India in the allocation of cases to benches.

Speaking on the topic "Accountability of Judges" at a seminar organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms in New Delhi, Justice Oka said that the absence of a proper roster in the Supreme Court raises questions about how cases are assigned to particular benches.

"The object of the roster is to rule out the possibility of manual intervention in listing. If there is a roster, the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Supreme Court will not have any right to manually intervene in the listing of any particular case," he said.

Pointing out that the Supreme Court's roster assigns certain categories of cases to multiple benches, he said that lawyers are often left unaware of which bench will hear their cases.

"If you go to the Supreme Court, there is unfortunately no proper roster. In the Supreme Court, you will find a caption, 'Judges' Roster'. What does it contain? Even the latest roster of October 26 only gives a subject-wise list. There are categories numbered 301 to 306, and these categories are assigned to four different benches," he said.

For instance, a Special Leave Petition challenging a High Court order in an environmental matter could be assigned to any one of several benches, leaving the lawyer uncertain about which bench would hear the case.

"The moot question is, if the same subject is assigned to multiple benches, who takes the decision of assigning the matter to a particular bench? Is it the CJI or the Registry? This is one factor which ensures that there is always manual intervention in the listing of cases," Justice Oka said.

He added that the Supreme Court was excessively CJI-centric and would become more accountable if it introduced a proper roster that ruled out manual intervention, including by the CJI.

Comparing the administrative systems in the Supreme Court and High Courts, Justice Oka said that administrative powers in several High Courts are exercised through committees, ensuring a degree of collective decision-making rather than concentrating all powers in the Chief Justice.

He also observed that the powers concentrated in the CJI sometimes lead to a tendency towards "hero-worship", which was not good for the institution, as warned by Dr BR Ambedkar.

Automatic Listing Of Fresh Cases Necessary To Ensure Accountability

Justice Oka said that one of the principal concerns regarding judicial accountability for litigants across India was the difficulty in getting newly filed cases listed for their first hearing.

He noted that different High Courts follow different procedures for listing cases. In some courts, advocates are required to mention matters before they can be listed, but even such mentioning does not guarantee that the cases will be taken up.

"The main issue of accountability as far as litigants are concerned across India is getting a freshly filed case listed for the first hearing," he said.

He suggested that freshly filed cases should be automatically listed within a day or within a specified period, describing automatic listing as the first step towards ensuring accountability.

Another concern, he said, was the preparation and implementation of cause lists. In several High Courts, judges are permitted to curtail cause lists even after dates have been fixed for a large number of cases.

"For example, even if dates are given for 90 cases, only 40 cases are listed. What is the result of this? Firstly, litigants are left helpless, and their cases get knocked off. Secondly, the Registry gets to choose which cases are to be listed," he said.

Recalling his tenure in the Supreme Court, Justice Oka said that he had passed a strong order clarifying that once a judicial order directed a matter to be listed, the Registry had no power to delete it from the list.

He stressed that a transparent and predictable listing mechanism was essential to prevent arbitrary decisions affecting litigants.

Collegium Must Be Transparent, Government Must Also Be Held Accountable

On judicial appointments, Justice Oka said that he remained a firm believer in the collegium system and did not favour replacing it unless a better alternative was developed.

"I am a firm believer in the collegium system. I feel that unless there is a better system, it should not be replaced. Maybe mistakes were committed in implementing the collegium system, but that does not make it bad," he said.

He agreed that the collegium must function transparently but emphasised that transparency could not be achieved merely by publishing detailed resolutions explaining the reasons for recommending or rejecting candidates.

"The transparency has to be in the process," he said.

Justice Oka also expressed concern that publishing detailed resolutions with reasons could violate the privacy of individuals and discourage lawyers from consenting to be considered for judicial appointments.

He stressed that accountability must also extend to the government, particularly when recommendations for judicial appointments remain pending for months.

Referring to the delays in clearing collegium recommendations, he said that the Supreme Court needed to consistently insist on timely action from the government.

He also referred to the judgment prescribing timelines for the processing of judicial appointments and questioned whether the judiciary was doing enough to hold the government accountable for delays.

Justice Oka further referred to a contempt petition filed by the Bengaluru Advocates' Association concerning the issue, observing that it was still pending and had not been listed.

"When collegium recommends names, is it not the duty of the judiciary to ask questions from the government? There is a contempt petition filed by Bengaluru Advocate Association, which is still pending. Unfortunately, that is not listed," he said.

Judges Must Follow Precedents

Justice Oka said that the judiciary could become more accountable by ensuring that judicial precedents were consistently followed.

He expressed concern over instances where coordinate benches failed to follow precedents laid down by other benches of the same strength.

He also suggested that the time had come for the Supreme Court to ensure that review and curative petitions were entertained only in rare cases, in keeping with their exceptional nature.

On the issue of judicial directions prescribing time limits for the disposal of cases, Justice Oka said that constitutional courts sometimes failed to appreciate the realities at the grassroots level.

He referred to the Constitution Bench judgment holding that directions requiring trial courts to dispose of pending cases within a specified timeframe should be issued only in exceptional circumstances.

Despite the judgment, he said, High Courts and the Supreme Court continued to issue such directions without adequately considering the practical difficulties faced by trial court judges.

Recalling his experience as a guardian judge, Justice Oka said that judges in the sessions division had brought to his attention the difficulties of handling sensitive criminal cases involving hundreds of witnesses while simultaneously complying with time-bound disposal orders.

"The judges tell me, 'What do I do? I have hundreds of time-bound cases,'" he said.

He stressed that constitutional courts must take into account the realities faced by subordinate courts before issuing directions that could place additional pressure on trial judges.

Constructive Criticism Of Judgments Must Be Encouraged

Justice Oka said that every citizen had the right to constructively criticise judgments delivered by constitutional courts, provided the criticism was reasoned and did not attribute improper motives to judges.

"Every judgment of a constitutional court, every citizen has the right to make constructive criticism. Give reasons. Always, a very healthy and constructive debate will help in delivering quality judgments," he said.

He cautioned against attributing motives to judges based on the outcomes of their decisions.

"I personally feel that correctness cannot depend on whether it favours the government or not. But now we see there is a tendency. If a judgment is in favour of the government, it is criticised, and motives are attributed. That is not correct. Criticism must be objective and dispassionate," he said.

Justice Oka also observed that judges who deliver bold judgments often face the highest number of complaints.

He said that a system must be developed to ensure judicial accountability without discouraging judges from delivering independent and courageous decisions.