The Tug-Of-War Over Judge Appointments
We often hear about disagreements between the Central Government and the Supreme Court over who gets to be a judge. Recently, former Supreme Court Judge Justice K.M. Joseph spoke openly about this issue. He urged the government to stop delaying the appointment of judges selected by the Supreme Court Collegium.
Speaking at an event organized by the Kerala High Court Bar Association to mark the 250th anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence, Justice Joseph made a strong appeal. He stated that this ongoing friction between the state and the judiciary must end. According to him, harmony is essential so that the country gets the finest judges possible.
His message to the government was simple: do not sit on the files. If the Supreme Court Collegium recommends a name, the government should act on it unless there is a very solid, relevant reason not to.
What Is The Collegium System? (What The Law Says)
To understand this debate, you need to know how judges are appointed in India. The Constitution of India says the President appoints judges. However, over the years, the Supreme Court has interpreted how this process should work to keep the judiciary independent from political pressure.
This led to the creation of the Supreme Court Collegium. The Collegium is a group of the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, headed by the Chief Justice of India. They are the ones who select and recommend names for new judges to the government.
During his speech, Justice Joseph referred to the Second Judges Case and the Third Judges Case. These are famous Supreme Court judgments that established the rules of the Collegium system. The objective of these rulings was to keep the judiciary free from government control. Under these rules, if the Collegium recommends a name, the government can send it back once for reconsideration. But if the Collegium “reiterates” (repeats) the same name, the government is legally bound to appoint that person.
Why We Need Fearless Judges
Justice Joseph highlighted that the goal of the Collegium is to find the “very best” people. But being the best does not just mean knowing all the law books by heart. It includes a bouquet of virtues, primarily courage and independence.
He quoted former Chief Justice of India M.N. Venkatachaliah, who once said about choosing a judge: “If he is a gentleman and if he knows a little bit of law, that is good enough.” Justice Joseph used this quote to explain that the country needs judges who are fearless.
He warned that it is foolish for any government to want judges who will never question them. A government might feel like they have “won the day” by having agreeable judges, but it ruins the great history of the Indian republic. He reminded the audience that independent, learned judges have made monumental contributions to building and protecting India.
The Crisis of 93,000 Pending Cases
Moving beyond appointments, Justice Joseph raised an alarm about the massive workload facing the Supreme Court. He noted that there are currently about 93,000 cases pending in the highest court of the land.
Many people believe that simply hiring more judges will solve the problem. Justice Joseph disagreed. He expressed concern that merely increasing the number of judges will not fix the issue unless the actual inflow of cases is controlled.
He pointed out that the Supreme Court’s docket is expanding rapidly. Today, there are 22 different statutes (laws) that give people the right to file appeals directly in the Supreme Court. This has given the Court jurisdictions that were not originally planned when the Constitution was drafted.
The Long Wait For Constitution Benches
One of the most critical issues Justice Joseph flagged was the delay in deciding constitutional matters. A Constitution Bench is a special bench of five or more Supreme Court judges. They sit together to decide major cases that involve complex questions about the Constitution.
According to data from the JALDI portal cited by Justice Joseph, the average wait time for these larger bench matters is a staggering 2,738 days. He shared the following statistics regarding pending cases:
- There are 28 main matters currently pending before Constitution Benches.
- 11 cases have been pending for one to five years.
- 6 cases have been pending for six to ten years.
- More than 6 cases have been pending for over ten years.
He gave a specific example to show how delays hurt the system. In 2016, a case (S.A. Sampath Kumar v. Kale Yadaiah) asked whether courts can set a strict timeline for Speakers of legislative assemblies to decide on anti-defection petitions (when politicians illegally switch parties). This important question was referred to a Constitution Bench. Justice Joseph noted that, upon checking the status, the matter still has not been decided.
The Solution: A Permanent Constitution Bench
To solve this massive backlog, Justice Joseph made a humble request: the Supreme Court of India must have a permanent Constitution Bench.
He suggested that with 38 judges now available, the Court could easily dedicate a permanent five-judge bench solely to deal with pending constitutional questions. He emphasized that cases of such high constitutional importance should not be kept pending for more than a year. Deciding these major cases quickly would also help clear thousands of smaller, dependent cases that are waiting for the final word from the big bench.
He also contrasted the Indian system with the United States Supreme Court. In the US, all nine Supreme Court judges sit together to hear every case. In India, because of the massive volume of cases, judges sit in smaller separate benches (usually of two or three judges). This means one bench may not always know what is happening before another bench.
Why This Matters For You
When the government delays appointing judges, courts remain understaffed, and your cases take longer to finish. A strong, fearless judiciary and a fast-acting Supreme Court are essential to protect the rights of every everyday citizen.
Story reported by Supreme Court – High Court – Legal Breaking News | Live Law India. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
