7 min readAug 27, 2022 08:55 AM IST
First published on: Aug 26, 2022 at 05:05 PM IST
The traditional way to assess a judge’s legacy on the bench is to look at their disposal rates and the number of judgments they deliver. While these are objective measures, one resorts to subjective measures also, such as the quality of the judgments, adherence to constitutional principles in their reasoning and conduct on the bench.
But these are different times for the Indian judiciary and the Supreme Court. Never has there been more coverage of so much of the Court’s functioning and never has the scrutiny been greater. Any serious assessment of a judge cannot limit itself purely to the prose they produce. This is more so in the case of a Chief Justice — the one who sets the agenda for the court and the manner of its functioning.
In assessing CJI NV Ramana’s legacy, I have eschewed the traditional method of looking at his judgments and instead, assessed his tenure through three key numbers that tell us all we need to know about his 16-month tenure as the 48th CJI. The three key numbers are 0, 163 and 71,411.
Zero is the number of Constitution Benches set up by CJI Ramana to hear important and substantial questions of interpretation of the Constitution or the law. There are, at present, 53 such matters pending before the court — an increase from the 48 that were pending when he took over as CJI. These are not arcane or academic matters — they relate to some of the most pressing issues of the day, including the abrogation of Article 370, the constitutionality of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, the validity of the reservations for Economically Weaker Sections, among many others.
There is simply no explanation for this. The Supreme Court was at or near full strength during his tenure with the number of judges never falling below 30.
163: This is the number of days that the appeal in the hijab case has been kept pending in the Supreme Court without being given a first hearing. The judgement of the Karnataka High Court upholding the state’s ban on hijabs in school was challenged on the very next day in the Supreme Court, on March 16. As of publication, this case has still not been listed even for a preliminary hearing.
The delay is inexplicable. In the usual course, a case filed in the Supreme Court is usually listed for hearing a couple of weeks after filing. The lawyers for the young students who filed the appeal have “mentioned” the matter on four separate occasions before the CJI. On each occasion, CJI Ramana promised to list the matter in the next few days or a week but did not do so.
This is no negligence or oversight. This is an active refusal once again to give even the most basic modicum of justice — a hearing in court. While CJI Ramana delivered lectures about the importance of fundamental rights and the court’s role in being their guardian, this omission exposes the utter hollowness of his words.
The complaint about delayed listing of cases is not exclusive to the hijab case. Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave recently pointed out the systemic problems in the registry that have hit junior lawyers of the courts hardest. But even then, the hijab case stands out as an example of callousness in even denying a first hearing.
71,411: These are the number of cases pending before the Supreme Court as of August 14, 2022. This is the second-highest level of pending cases in the Supreme Court since monthly data were made public in 2010, and as per legal scholar Nick Robinson’s research, the second highest since the court changed the way it counts the number of pending cases in the early 90s. In fact, the highest ever number of pending cases in the Supreme Court — 72,062 — was during July this year. This was accompanied by the usual post-vacancy drop in pending cases but even at or near full strength, the Supreme Court under CJI Ramana has been unable to keep the rising pendency in check.
When Ramana took over as CJI in April 2022, the number of pending cases was 67,279. This was a sharp increase from 59,935 cases pending at the start of the tenure of his immediate predecessor, CJI Bobde. However, the pandemic-induced lockdowns, lack of judicial appointments and the difficult transition to virtual hearings are some mitigating factors that explain the increase in cases during CJI SA Bobde’s term. However, it remains a fact that little to no progress has been made during CJI Ramana’s term in reducing the number of pending cases in the Supreme Court.
CJI Ramana has achieved less than nothing. Like his immediate predecessors, he leaves behind a court in worse shape than which he found it.
Alok Prasanna KumarSenior Resident Fellow, Vidhi Centre for Legal PolicyWhat these numbers tell us is that the Court has lost its purpose and its nerve. Neither has it weighed in on important questions of law and the Constitution nor has it ensured speedy disposal of long pending cases. Ramana’s tenure as CJI was marked by “judicial tiki-taka” – important matters being handed over to committees or simply adjourned. This is best exemplified in the Pegasus saga. When faced with allegations that the Indian government maliciously used foreign spyware against its own citizens, CJI Ramana refused to compel the government to respond, preferring to push the matter to a committee whose report was not taken up for hearing until the last few days of his tenure. The ball has been passed on once again to a future bench with no clear idea if anything consequential will come out of the case.
Perhaps the comparison with the football tactic is unfair. The Barcelona and Spanish teams which adopted tiki-taka achieved great success through this tactic until it was countered successfully. CJI Ramana has achieved less than nothing. Like his immediate predecessors, he leaves behind a court in worse shape than which he found it.
The writer is Senior Resident Fellow, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, Bengaluru
Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana (centre) with CJI-designate Justice Uday Lalit (right) during a farewell ceremony organised for him by Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), at Supreme Court in New Delhi, Aug. 26, 2022. (PTI)
Share
