A first step

Making SC roster public is welcome. CJI must take this further — questions related to powers of his office must be addressed

Three weeks after its four senior-most judges — Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph — went public with their grievances (complaint/ jeremiad-शिकायत) over the conduct of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), especially in the allocation(allotment / assignment-आवंटन) of cases, the Supreme Court has made public its judges roster(schedule/timetable-अनुसूची). The list that was posted on the SC’s website on Thursday shows which judge hears what matter by subject. The move to put the roster(schedule) in the public domain is the first acknowledgment by the CJI that all is not well with the apex(supreme-सर्वोच्च) court. The subject-wise allocation of cases is a welcome attempt(effort/endeavor-प्रयास) to bring in a modicum(short/small amount-अल्पांश) of transparency in the constitution of benches. 

However, the concerns(anxiety/worry-चिंता) raised by the four senior judges pertain(concern/relate-संबद्ध होना) to substantive(basic/core-मूल) issues of checks and balances to the powers of the CJI(Chief Justice of India) in his capacity as Master of the Roster. Addressing them will require the judiciary to deliberate(intentionally/planned-जानबूझकर), internally, a mechanism to temper(nature/ethos-स्वभाव) the CJI’s powers of discretion(decision/verdict-निर्णय) while also responding to the debates on judicial reform in the public sphere(area-क्षेत्र).

On January 12, Justices Chelameswar, Gogoi, Lokur and Joseph spoke about how “cases with far-reaching consequences(outcome/repercussion-परिणाम) for the nation… had been assigned by the chief justice selectively to benches of their preference”. The issues they raised were troubling(disaster/problem-मुसीबत) in themselves. But what was even more worrying(agony/anguish-चिंता) was that the SC, and the CJI, seemed to have turned a deaf ear to the concerns(anxiety/worry-चिंता) of its senior-most judges. Since then, CJI Dipak Misra has had a series of meetings with the dissenting(disagreement/arguement-मतभेद) judges. But by all accounts, the trust deficit(deficiency/shortage-घाटा) within the country’s apex court is far from being removed. 

Making the roster public could be the first step towards this objective(aim/purpose-उद्देश्य). However, the roster finalized on Thursday is only about the presiding(officiate/chair-पीठासीन) judges. It does not talk about the other judges who will be part of the benches. Also, the CJI has taken it upon himself to hear all Public Interest Litigation. At a time when senior judges have alleged(contend/assert-आरोप) that the CJI’s office “has been adversely affected”, and given that PILs most often require the judiciary to assert(declare/claim) its independence vis-a-vis other branches of government, CJI Misra’s move to assign all such cases to himself is bound to spark(ignite-चिंगारी) questions.

Over the years, the SC has shown a healthy inclination(tendency/propensity-झुकाव) to course correct. The spirit of reflection and self-criticism should not be confined(limit/enclose-सीमित) to jurisprudence (lawmaking/ divinity-न्यायशास्र) but extend to the apex court’s self-regulation. The CJI’s stewardship will be critical(serious/ important-महत्वपूर्ण) to this process.