Judicial reforms in India

“Trial by media” is not a rarity in our society. Given the fact that scandal sells where page views or television clicks are concerned, there are “scandals” that ultimately end up as figments of imagination. Or worse, as having been motivated by the intent of some to deliberately besmirch the reputation of an individual who may be innocent. No matter. News of the scandal involving an individual appears on Page 1 not just once but several times, and any future denial or retraction gets buried in a small item on Page 18. There has been much speculation about the actual facts behind the reported discovery by firemen of a cash hoard in a judge’s house. A story

involving an individual of such high consequence as a High Court judge is so tantalising to the public taste that it may not be long when other media outlets follow the example of a very prominent broadsheet on March 21 and carry similar stories. An individual is innocent unless proven guilty, including a High Court judge, yet in the rush for ad-generating traffic, such courtesies may be ignored. Whatever be the facts concerning the High Court justice in question, what cannot any longer be ignored is the need for judicial reform. In a democracy, public confidence in the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive is essential for a democracy to remain in good health. Given such a context, it would be in the public interest were the Supreme Court of India and the Law Ministry to work seamlessly together in order to ensure such reforms. For without such reforms, scandal mongering would continue to dominate the headlines. There was recently an uproar in some sections of the media and the public when the Prime Minister attended the swearing-in ceremony of Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Such a controversy is unfair to both the PM as well as the CJI. The Executive and the Judiciary are not foes of each other, and neither is the Legislature to either. Consultations between the principals of these two branches of the state should be routine for a smooth functioning of the machinery of state. The former CJI, Justice Chandrachud, also had social interaction with the Prime Minister, and that did not prevent several judgements of the Court from being adverse to the wishes of the Executive. Several judgments of the Supreme Court involving Public Interest Litigation (PIL) have been adverse to the Executive, yet such judgments have not affected such social interaction from taking place. PILs were the brainchild of the Supreme Court. Even within the Supreme Court, there may have occurred differences of opinion, including with the Chief Justice of that period, but such differences are a sign of health rather than denoting any ailment in one of the three pillars of the state, the Judiciary. Vigorous internal discussion is certain to take place before any momentous judgment.

The Supreme Court of India is enquiring into the facts of the recent controversy involving a High Court judge. Putting on a live stream of court proceedings has helped greatly in building confidence in the Judiciary within the public in much the same way as live streaming of legislative proceedings has done. What is needed in the present situation are judicial reforms discussed and agreed upon between the Executive and the Judiciary. Any fall in such confidence below certain levels would be calamitous to the smooth functioning of our democracy. The right to speak without the sword of a possible defamation charge hanging over the head of a member of the Legislature is vital in a democracy. Yet such a right presupposes the need for sufficient due diligence so as to be reasonably certain of being accurate in the presentation. Abuse needs to be avoided, yet often is not. In general, abuse of a high decibel level reduces rather than increases the credibility of an abuser and sympathy for the person being abused. Despite much abuse thrown at him during the 2021-24 campaign to tar Candidate Trump, he went on to win the US Presidency. The same can be said of Prime Minister Modi, who was subjected to a battery of abuse during his period in office as Chief Minister, but that did not prevent him from winning for the BJP a majority in both the Gujarat assembly as well as the Lok Sabha. Nor did such abuse prevent the BJP from getting a sufficient number of Lok Sabha seats in the last parliamentary elections for Prime Minister Modi to secure a third term. During that period, what would be helpful to the public interest would be judicial reforms worked on seamlessly between the Executive and the Judiciary. Among such reforms could be ways of ensuring faster justice, so as not to lose sight of the old adage, “justice delayed is justice denied”. Far too many are in prison either as undertrials or awaiting trial, again an issue that both wings of the state need to work together and set right. In the case involving a High Court judge presently in the news, only a thorough enquiry will bring out the facts, and after an enquiry by the Supreme Court takes place, both the Judiciary as well as the Executive need to arrive in reaching a consensus involving changes in law that could subsequently be done through the Legislative Branch. Both Bar and Bench need to work together to ensure the maintenance of public trust in the judicial system. The need for reform is urgent, and must be already engaging the attention of both the PM as well as the CJI.