Have you ever thought? Who decides the course of this Country’s judicial administration? It is a handful of senior judges in the Supreme Court, who are at the helm of affairs in the name of Collegium!
Judiciary can never mix with the State administration or latter can have any interference over the administration of judiciary in our set-up of Constitution and for that sake any nation which lives on the ethos of democracy.
Though our forefathers who gave us our Constitution wanted our Judiciary be separated from the State. But still interference in the form of giving approval to appointment of High Court and Supreme Court Judges lies in the hands of the Union Government. We have seen many Judges who commanded respect for their legal prowess and integrity were scaled down from original selection or appointment to nowhere!
Justices Mrs. Tahilramani and Mr. Sanjib Banerjee are having at least two things in common. She was the past Chief Justice of the Madras High Court and he is the current Chief Justice. While she was transferred to Meghalaya High Court as its Chief Justice, but she defied the order and relieved herself voluntarily from the service.
Whereas the present Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee too offered now the same post to that of his predecessor CJ. On the 9th day of November 2021, the Collegium in its resolution recommended his name for the Chief Justice seat at Meghalaya High Court, whose sanctioned strength is 4 Judges compared to 75 Judges in the Madras High Court.
Faqsonlaw have been advocating that Chief Justice Post can never be equated or gauged on the strength of the Judges below him, but, on the potency of sensible judgments and making available a freely accessible justice delivery system to the litigants.
What does it mean?
Some years ago, an acting Chief Justice of the Madras High Court wondered on seeing an armed CISF personnel manning High Court campus and he uttered “how a common man would approach the High Court?” He was unwilling to renew CISF contract. Anyways, later the acting Chief Justice had to leave the State to elsewhere and he could not correct the course of judicial administration as what he thought was right – a common man’s difficulty in reaching High Court!
One Chief Justice viewed that Courts can never be a castle, wherein another perceived a threat from civilians under the guise of Litigants and Lawyers hence he trooped battalion. So, how big the Court is, it does not matter, but, how sensible a Chief Justice is, in running the course of judicial administration, alone matters.
Justice Sanjib Banerjee had made certain sensible comments against the Election Commission of India, who ran elections in the State while Covid second wave was to start. He remarked, ECI was responsible for the surge in Covid-2 deaths and equated it to murder. ECI had then raised this issue before the SC for expunging such abominable remarks, however, SC declined to interfere. Similarly he questioned the State administration for beautification of marina beach disregarding livelihood of the people depending on it.
Justice Tahilramani is still remembered for her contribution towards revamping State’s Legal Aid and made comforts to the litigants by providing basic amenities like seating arrangements, rest rooms even in smaller courts… and of course she conducted a very fair judicial administration in the State.
Unfortunately, such sensible Judges are removed and posted elsewhere when their routine transfers were not ripen.
Our system is so blindfolded and still relishing the colonial era – placing a sensible arguments or a healthy debate with the Superiors or the Authorities are prohibited, and if anyone does, he invites crime of “insubordination” on him and under “insubordination” tag, the defiant would even be charged of bribery / corruption or the least he would be transferred to a dry region! Very unfortunate is that even Judges are frightened by such coercive measures.