Chief Justice Ramana is right
Weaknesses in both legislative processes and executive capabilities lead to judicial overload
In a landmark speech, at a conference of state chief ministers and high court chief justices, and in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana offered a powerful diagnosis of what ails Indian judiciary on Saturday. And this diagnosis raises deeply disturbing questions about India’s legislative processes, executive capacity and political and bureaucratic intent. His comments come in the wake of repeated criticism of the judiciary for the huge pendency in cases and judicial overreach.
CJI Ramana’s fundamental point was this: The courts don’t want to be inundated with cases. But to prevent that, other parts of the State have to work better. If legislatures consider and pass laws with care and diligence, they will not be prone to easy challenges. If various arms of the executive, from the police to public sector units, from revenue officers to municipal authorities work with fairness and rigour, citizens will not need to rush to courts with grievances. If these internal branches of government do not fight with each other, the case load will automatically dip. And if the political executive helps fill judicial vacancies promptly at various levels, then the cases that do come in can be speedily disposed. To be sure, not all of this is because the legislature and executive deliberately wishes to fail or act with malice. It is often due to weaknesses in Indian State capacity in general. But, broadly speaking, the CJI is correct. Better laws, fairer enforcement of laws, less arbitrary decision making, more harmony within the executive, greater willingness of the executive to assume responsibility rather than pass the buck, obedience of court orders, and supplementing judicial capacity promptly will all help in reducing the excessive load on courts. This does not, however, absolve the judiciary of its own missteps, including a curious abdication when it comes to hearing crucial cases of constitutional importance.
Where the CJI and PM agreed was the need to make courts more accessible. CJI Ramana has backed the use of local languages in high courts, while PM Modi spoke of drafting laws in a manner where a conventional version draped in legal jargon was accompanied by one which has simpler terminology and is easier to understand. Both also agreed on the need to improve judicial infrastructure. But if Justice Ramana’s comments can force the legislature to introspect, and the executive to act a little more fairly, it wouldn’t just help the judiciary, but also serve citizens better.