M N Khan
NEW DELHI–There is a paradigm shift in our judiciary after Chief Justice NV Ramana started his inning as the Chief Justice of India. Generally, the performance of a team is based on the acumen, ability and strategy of the captain and how efficient he is to lead the team. It is equally true for the judiciary and other institutions also.
Judiciary has now become more assertive as compared to the past few years and many experts believe that the Ramana Effect is clearly visible in the modus-operandi of the Supreme Court and even in High Courts. If the same spirit persists then it can help the judiciary to regain its past glory.
After some strong statements by the Chief Justice of India, the tug of war between the judiciary and the executive is now apparent on the issue of the appointment of Tribunals. Judiciary believes that the government has been dilly-dallying on the issue. On the lackadaisical approach of the government on the appointment of tribunals, the CJI took a tough stand on it when he said, “There is no respect for the Supreme Court’s Judgment. You are testing our patience.”
Senior Supreme Court lawyer Sanjay Hegde said, “There is no doubt that the judiciary is not as exaggeratedly deferential to the executive as it seemed to be previously. However, that does not mean that the judiciary is looking for a confrontation. It is the job of the judiciary to enforce the rule of law and once executive or legislative action has been struck down, such action cannot be repeated on the executive’s part. The judiciary can hardly be expected to be silent if its judgments are blatantly ignored.”
Very recently, Judiciary and the executive appeared to be headed on a collision on the issue of NCLAT Chairman Justice Ashok Iqbal Singh Cheema’s retirement ahead of schedule. During the hearing of the petition filed by Justice Ashok Iqbal Singh Cheema, NCLAT Chairman, the Attorney General for India KK Venugopal had said that the Centre has the power under the Tribunal Reform Act to terminate the services. On this, Chief Justice of India N Ramana replied by saying that the court can put a stay on this. Even the stage is not completely set for any kind of confrontation at the moment, but the fact is that Judiciary has signalled that it may not remain silent and will assert itself as and when required and it is not going to buckle under any kind of pulls and pressure from the government.
M R Shamshad, advocate-on-record at the Supreme Court of India while sharing his perspective on, Is Judiciary heading for a confrontation said, “This issue is not of confrontation between two highest constitutional organs. It has to be understood in perspective as to why so many governments sanctioned posts are vacant for so long. It affects the entire justice delivery system. It is a reminder from one organ to the other in the interest of the justice delivery system, which is already overburdened. If Judiciary does not remind the mighty executives to enable the citizens to have access to the justice system, who else will it do? It is the minimum that the Constitutional Courts are obliged to do.”
A Special Bench of Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and L. Nageswara Rao “held its hand” on initiating contempt proceedings against the government and allowed the latter two weeks to make appointments to “all the tribunals”. “If the government does not act, we will pass orders,” the CJI said.
“If not a confrontation, it surely can be called a deadlock. Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies set up to ease the workload of Courts. So for speedy as well as for quality justice Tribunals are the need of the hour. Naturally, the present deadlock in appointments is detrimental to the speedy disposal or resolution of cases before these tribunals. Needless to say that justice hurried is justice buried but justice delayed is justice denied. While Parliament has its law-making power, the Court has pointed out that the Government., by repeatedly enacting the same provisions with regard to Tribunals which the Court has struck down at least twice has failed to provide any justification as to how the Supreme Court’s decisions are wrong,” said Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India.
CJI Ramana at a recent P.D. Desai Memorial Lecture said, “For the judiciary to apply checks on governmental power and action, it has to have complete freedom. The judiciary cannot be controlled, directly or indirectly, by the legislature or the executive, or else the Rule of Law would become illusory. It is, therefore, extremely vital to function independently and withstand all external aids and pressures. While there is a lot of discussion about the pressure from the executive, it is also imperative to start a discourse as to how social media trends can affect the institutions.”
“After taking charge, CJI Ramana made it clear that the High Courts should not worry about the interference from the Supreme Court,” said Pradeep Rai, vice president of the Supreme Court Bar Association. “The message was given loud and clear, and we can see the effect in the orders passed by the High Courts,” Rai claimed.
It is in the interest of the country that Judiciary remains assertive and intervene as and when required because the Judiciary happens to be the last hope for a common man.
