Senior advocate Vikas Singh has had a glorious practice of around 30 years in the Supreme Court. He was designated as a senior advocate in the year 2004. There-after he served as the Additional Solicitor General, Government of India, from 2005 to 2008. He is also the former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

In an interaction with PARMOD KUMAR of THE STATESMAN, Singh gets candid about the collegium system, huge pendency of cases in Indian courts, and the greater role of the apex court to interpret law.

Advertisement

Q: Given your vast experience in judicial functioning, how do you see the state of judiciary in the country today?

A: The state of judiciary is certainly better under the present Chief Justice of India than it was under the erstwhile CJI. However, much remains to be done to restore people’s faith in this institution, which has been eroded over the past several years. So, the first change is that CJI Sanjiv Khanna wants to tackle the pendency in a non-discriminatory way – without looking for matters giving him any publicity. I think that is a very welcome change because in the institution in the erstwhile Chief Justice’s tenure, everybody felt that he would only be interested in taking up matters which either are internationally or nationally making news, and not the regular dispensation of justice.

Q: There are over 5.5 crore cases pending before different courts leading to the perception that these would not be decided in one’s lifetime or at least by 2047 when India would be celebrating 100 years of its independence. Your comment?

A. The pendency of cases cannot be resolved unless urgent steps are taken to first upgrade the infrastructure for dispensing justice, ensure all vacancies at all levels of the judiciary are filled expeditiously, and if this is done on a war footing, we can expect some improvement in the disposal of pending cases. When I say infrastructure, there are lower courts without stenographers or even paper… clients have to sometimes bring paper for judgments to be written.. There are no judges in many courts, courts are without a presiding officer for months together. The quality of judges has to improve and more emphasis has to be given on the people who are able to decide matters quickly rather than those who are indecisive and just keep lingering on matters without any disposal. So, these are the two issues which will actually make a huge difference in the disposal of the backlog of cases in the country.

Q: Do you think the Supreme Court is effectively discharging the role of a constitutional court with many matters relating to the interpretation of law and the Constitution pending adjudication for a long time?

A: I believe the apex court should focus more on deciding constitutional issues rather than correcting every error committed by the high courts, and thus becoming a regular court of appeal. The Supreme Court should intervene only in cases where it believes that a High Court has committed gross injustice. Otherwise, it should confine itself to constitutional matters.

Q: On judicial appointments, there is a perception that the collegium system has not brought forth men of merit. Many former Supreme Court judges have also voiced their reservation on the opaqueness in the entire selection process and the working of the collegium. Do you agree?

A: The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) had two facets — one was prescribing qualifications for persons to be considered for appointment, and the second was vesting the appointing authority in a committee that had a majority of government nominees. The NJAC was faulted solely on the ground that the appointment process was taken over by the government, thus reducing the primacy of the Chief Justice of India in matters of appointments to the higher judiciary. Parliament could have enacted a law prescribing the method of recruitment for the remaining part of NJAC — that is, laying down qualifications and establishing a transparent system for determining eligibility. However, it seems the Parliament was not interested in the quality of persons being appointed but only in assuming the authority to appoint, and hence, no such law has been framed to date. In fact, I had submitted a draft bill to Kiren Rijiju, the then law minister, proposing a framework to regulate the collegium system. Although Rijiju mentioned in Parliament that I had provided a bill on the subject, no steps have been taken to introduce such a bill. In my view, the collegium system must reinvent itself by imposing self discipline and formulating transparent criteria for determining eligibility for judicial appointments. It should allow all eligible candidates to apply, and the best among them should be appointed, rather than continuing with the present system of appointing only those known to or appearing before the collegium members, which breeds nepotism and favouritism. Another criterion could be a minimum number of reported judgments in which the advocate has appeared, along with a requirement for pro bono/legal aid work to demonstrate empathy for the justice delivery system and for the underprivileged and downtrodden.

Q: In the recent past, actions of certain High Court judges have raised concern in judicial circles. For instance, a Calcutta High Court judge resigning and joining the BJP, and the statement of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court. Your take?

A: The recent trend of judges joining political parties after resigning or making inappropriate statements in public is a grim reminder of the flaws in the appointment process, which allow individuals with such backgrounds to be elevated to the higher judiciary. This should also be a very important criterion when considering persons for appointment to the higher judiciary.

Q. There are more than 5,700 vacancies in district and subordinate judiciary, and 327 vacancies in the High court. With a huge backlog of cases and not many meritorious lawyers opting for or being picked up for judgeship, are we faced with a situation where the justice delivery system is crumbling?

A. If the collegium system was to prescribe qualifications for appointment to the higher judiciary and establish a transparent selection process, more meritorious lawyers would be encouraged to become judges. One of the factors that dissuades good lawyers from considering elevation is the delay in the appointment process. Timelines should be clearly defined, particularly with regard to IB clearance and the issuance of the notification. If a recommendation remains pending for more than a month without any adverse findings against the nominee, the appointment should be finalized without any further delay to instil a sense of certainty in the process, thereby encouraging more meritorious lawyers to opt for judicial appointments. One of the core issues for a healthy democracy is a robust judiciary, and if people start losing faith in the justice delivery system, it poses a grave threat to democracy itself. At a time when India is aspiring to be a global leader, we must demonstrate to the world that we have a vibrant and robust judiciary that does not shy away from taking decisions, even against the government, when necessary, with the rule of law being the sole consideration in deciding matters.