Focus on arbitration, but more court reforms vital

The establishment of an international arbitration centre in Hyderabad, which if it can ensure credibility and acceptance globally, would be a wonderful addition to our country. In a global world, trade and commerce lead diplomacy, state relationships and other ties. If global business can find in this nascent idea, a brilliant brainchild of the current Chief Justice of India, Justice N.V. Ramana, an acceptable alternative to arbitration centres in London or Singapore, it will provide an edge to our global investment attractiveness. Indian businesses, a majority of whom are family-run, often need a quick, acceptable alternative to going to courts and this arbitration centre must ensure it keeps their faith.

However, the key for success of arbitration processes and verdicts lies in ensuring mutually satisfactory outcomes. Else, the matter will again land at our higher courts, who too have, barring interpretations by arbitrators on contracts, been too happy to intervene rather than empower the arbitration alternative.

But the success of arbitration alone will not achieve the lofty yet pragmatic objective stressed upon by CJI Justice Ramana at the inaugural of the centre on Saturday — of ensuring citizens, business and other litigants see courts and trials as the last option.

The pendency of cases has often been discussed in India as a major challenge before the judiciary. Timely recruitment and filling up of vacancies in lower judiciary is an important step. In this context, the entire country must seriously consider the suggestions given by the First Citizen, President Ram Nath Kovind. The All-Indian Judicial Services can be an answer to the talent thirst of our courts, and a welcome addition to our current options of recruiting all judges only from the practicing side of law.

The second issue is to seriously address the role of the government as a litigator. A special drive once in six months to allow the judiciary to address all cases where the government is a litigator — often in civil, land, tax and service disputes — must be mandated for settlement without scope for any further. An automatic concession from the government on such cases, after a time lapse, too would be a good way out.

The third aspect is the tenure and transfer of judges. Once a judge is made chief justice of a high court, there must be no transfers, unless it is a promotion to the Supreme Court. The judges, both at the high court and the Supreme Court, must have a fixed tenure, besides superannuation, as a choice — either retire or serve as a judge, or chief justice, for at least two years. This would allow the chief justice to also focus on the administrative side reforms of the judiciary, and help innovatively address changing concerns.

The Indian judiciary is the most majestic pillar of our democracy, but citizens, we, the people, from whom all power stems — have or perceive the least sense of being the source of giving power to it. Citizens have a right to the highest level of transparency and every single inner matter from recruitment to transfer to promotion must be shared without inhibitions with the public.

Finally, the country must consider a judicial ombudsman, which will oversee, as an agency, all judicial matters and workings and ensure and report to the people that all is good in our courts.

The third aspect is the tenure and transfer of judges. Once a judge is made chief justice of a high court, there must be no transfers, unless it is a promotion to the Supreme Court.