Opinion - Interviews   

"The judicial system depends on the faith of the common man"

J. Venkatesan

K.G. Balakrishnanwill take over as the 37th Chief Justice of India on January 14. In an interview, he outlines his priorities to streamline the justice delivery system. Excerpts:

— Photo: V. Sudershan

K.G. Balakrishnan: "... even the slightest allegations against the judiciary are to be checked very seriously."

What do you think should be your priorities after you take charge?

I have to get down the number of pending cases. There are a large number of cases in almost all the High Courts. Of course, in some High Courts the pendency could be reduced to some extent. For example, in Kerala I am told 61,000 cases were reduced last year. That could be the main priority. And, of course, other things like setting up a number of courts and as part of that to speed up the appointment of judges and judicial officers in the subordinate judiciary. Once those seats are filled up we can move and do something to reduce the arrears.

What about setting up new courts?

The State governments have got paucity of funds to start new courts. The Centre should give some financial assistance to the States. You see the Negotiable Instruments Act is a Central legislation. The Section 138 proceedings [under the NI Act] are in the High Courts. Just as the CBI Special Courts deal with the cases investigated by the CBI, for the disposal of Section 138 cases the Centre could give some financial assistance to States to set up special courts.

Some States have started evening courts. Will you recommend this to other States?

Evening courts. I do not know how many States have that. Only certain types of cases could be disposed of in the evening courts and they cannot have regular trials. It will be useful in some petty cases, as the accused can just come and plead guilty and pay the fine. So we have to identify the cases that can be disposed of by the evening courts.

What do you think of the Alternative Dispute Resolution System?

The ADRS has picked up in foreign countries but it is not very easy to have that sort of system in India. We have to identify the cases, we have to find arbitrators or conciliators or mediators. First we should have a mindset for this. We should evolve our own system for alternate dispute resolution. We cannot adopt the foreign system.

What are the other ways by which you think pendency can be wiped out or at least the delay avoided?

We should have a system by which certain cases [affecting foreign direct investment], which require urgent consideration, can be disposed of expeditiously. Of course, the High Courts are giving priority to such cases. Even in the Supreme Court, urgent matters are dealt with at the SLP stage or we hear the matter and try to dispose of at the earliest. But the system itself should have such a facility, instead of judges giving priority.

There is criticism that under the Judges Inquiry Bill the National Judicial Council is completely managed by the judiciary.

At this stage I cannot comment on that. I have read the earlier Draft Bill. Of course, there were some changes thereafter. Somebody else scrutinising the activities of the judges may have some problem because it will affect the independence of the judiciary. That is why to protect the independence of the judiciary the senior judges themselves make a sort of enquiry. This is only a prelude to any impeachment that may sometimes become absolutely necessary. It is not anti-impeachment. It is only a correction procedure, if there is a serious impropriety you can request a judge to go on leave or some judge may voluntarily quit.

Why is the CJI not covered by the Bill?

Indian courts are viewed by the outside world with high respect. Somebody may have a feeling why the CJI will have to face this kind of mechanism, is something wrong with him. Not that he [CJI] is being put above law or something like that. Impeachment procedures are there. For the Chief Justice there is no exception.

In the United States whenever a judge is appointed, there is transparency in the appointment. Can we have similar appointments?

In America it is a political appointment. Because that is a political appointment it comes through a particular channel. When we talk about the apex court appointment, here mostly the Chief Justices or acting Chief Justices of High Courts only are all appointed. Everybody knows that judge, his performance as a judge, his performance as a Chief Justice, so the transparency is there, we cannot discuss it openly.

Do you subscribe to the view that there is judicial activism to some extent?

No. There are traditional judges; they stick to the precedents and practices. Many socially important matters come to the Supreme Court. Naturally the judge should take into consideration all the relevant factors, the environment, our eco-system, our lack of facilities for the public, etc. The judge appreciates these things and takes a positive view of these things. Such judges are called activist judges.

But in some matters, there is the perception that the judiciary tends to legislate...

Even in many of these matters, the public make a serious complaint of something, the court gives directions and sometimes appeals to Parliament please do something and have a legislation on this subject, even then sometimes these legislation take a long time or it is not done. For example, smoking in public places is injurious to health. Parliament is not coming out with any legislation on this. The courts give some direction so that the public will have some protection. It is not that we are having a parallel Parliament or that there is any confrontation. Directions are given only to protect the interests and the fundamental rights of the people.

What steps do you propose to take to remove corruption in the judiciary?

There are some allegations of corruption and we cannot run away from it. But we should be very careful in dealing with allegations of corruption. Because the whole system depends on the faith of the common man. They should have confidence and faith in the system and if there is any allegation of corruption that should result in erosion of that faith. If the faith is lost, the system itself has no right to exist. That is why even the slightest allegations against the judiciary are to be checked very seriously.

Is there any move to allow live telecast of proceedings in important cases?

We have not reached that stage. However, we have to think seriously of recording the proceedings in the court using the advanced technology.

What is your view on the death penalty?

It is the law of this land. So I cannot make any comment. As long as it is in the statute book we have to apply it.

I am confident that with the help of my colleagues and lawyers I can do some more good service. The judiciary is respected not because people are afraid of it but because it has done some good service to the people. But I don't say it is the only institution that is doing service to the people. All institutions are doing their part. Of late, the reputation of the judiciary has gone up.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

When army men run riot
Uniting to protect workers' rights
Manmohan Singh's leadership call in 2007
Corrections and Clarifications
Reasons for optimism about world economy
The Noida killings
Unfortunate
"The judicial system depends on the faith of the common man"

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu