The Brave Pedestrian

It is a lie that Government currently has no say in appointing judges, and therefore Judicial Appointments Commission Act is required for giving government a say. The fact is that government has been continually influencing the appointment of judges by the Collegium from the back door. Recommendations to the collegium are made through the back door by big-ticket lawyers who have access, like Manu Singhvi, Kapil Sibal and Arun Jaitley. These are the mid dlemen or puppet masters who make judicial appointments happen, by trading favours (land allotments, post-retirement appointments etc) with collegium judges. They are king-makers or "judge-makers" who approach the collegium on behalf of government, powerful business lobbies and political parties, to promote their favourite candidates. The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) will only enable the government to have additional control over judicial appointments -- some extra bargaining leverage to make the collegium judges be...

High court judges nowadays are unusually eager to dismiss Public Interest Litigations (PILs). They go to great lengths to avoid admitting PILs. They show great zeal in defending the corrupt government from citizens. Is it because they are beneficiaries of government generosity? Like · Comment · Share

Markandeya Katju said Allahabad HC was a hotbed of “uncle judges” who favoured the family members of their brother judges – enabling them to become very successful as lawyers, and very rich soon after launching their practice. Like  ·  Comment  ·  Share

Seeking judicial remedy is almost impossible for the common man. It is not just an uphill task, it is a Himalayan task. Our courts are NOT a viable option for dependent persons. It is also NOT for the poor, the very young, the elderly, and other disadvantaged sections. Judiciary is therefore accessible to a very small proportion of Indian citizens; arguably, less than 5% of India’s population can actually hope to get some remedies from the courts. Surely, this is NOT how the  Constitution intended it to be! So, must we still maintain a respectful silence, while we suffer without any hope of improvement in court functioning? Is this what is expected of us now? No. Never. Discussion about the need for judicial reform CANNOT be the sole preserve of eminent jurists. The unavailability of judiciary to the common man and his family members deeply concerns their Life & Liberty. If nothing else, this alone gives common people every right to discuss the deficiencies of the ...

S Rajendra Babu, former Chief Justice of India, said, “Many of our poor fellow citizens have chosen to avoid courts and other legal systems rather than face intimidation, cost and time-loss in legal proceedings.” But it’s not only the poor! Even the middle-classes and the well-to-do have made up their mind that GOING TO COURT IS NOT A REALISTIC OPTION. Most people go to court in the heat of the moment, or they are given false hopes by lawyers. But they soon realize that they  have walked into a quicksand. They realize that there is MORE INJUSTICE IN COURT. A few people get sucked into an ENDLESS CYCLE OF COMPLAINING against lawyers and judges, and multiplying litigations in response to their sufferings in court. The whole lives, and life-savings, of lakhs of such people are consumed by fruitless litigation. Like  ·  Comment  ·  Share

Each and every judge carries the guilt of having been elevated to his current position by doing favours to government officials, politicians, senior counsels, etc. in exchange for recommendations to the collegium. His entire career is controlled by the collegium of judges at High Courts and Supreme Court. There are no rules, no benchmarks, no due process to be followed, and no reference to any institution created by any law; the words of the collegiums -- which are illegal -- are the only law. How can such judges and chief justices safeguard our fundamental rights against encroachment by the powers-that-be? And that is why the public finds that judges usually avoid taking action against corrupt government officials and politicians. That is because, as the saying goes, those who live in glass houses avoid throwing stones. Like  ·  Comment  ·  Share

Every few days, the media reports a big judgment that makes it look like judiciary is a defender of democracy and saviour of human rights. But what goes unreported is that every single day, lakhs of undertrials and litigants, and their families, suffer needless pain, humiliation, disappointment, anxiety and mind-numbing expenditure. And exploitation by lawyers. These are the victims of judiciary . Nobody is interested in these victims, and their story of unending misery. Because there is nothing grand, colourful or decisive to report -- just human lives rendered meaningless in shades of muddy gray waiting outside dull, dusty courtrooms. For these victims of judiciary, media stories about grand judgments are surely like salt rubbed into their wounds!

Our Constitution gave us a medieval monarchical set-up inherited from British colonial government, and said that this is the supreme guardian of our fundamental rights. Our courtrooms are full of the stage props of imperialism, like gowns and bibs, gavels, ceremonial sceptres and high chairs. We are expected to bow and scrape and nod like bad actors in a Shakespearean drama, and mumble humble phrases like “Obliged, milord!” We write court applications on printed stationery wi th readymade slavish phrases like “For such acts of kindness, we shall ever crave”. And this institution, which encourages such archaic imperialist habits, is supposed to protect us from the excesses of our modern democratically elected government or our modern fellow-citizens, corporates etc? We are expected to move the courts to act by invoking ancient writs like certiorari and mandamus, dating back to British courts of 1000 AD -- which is completely alien to Indian jurisprudence… And this mockup of a...

Chief Justices are not supposed to be pen-pushers. They are supposed to have a GRAND VISION of justice, the BIG PICTURE of the entire judicial system. Theirs is one of the topmost jobs in the country. They are given the responsibility and independence to correct the bad practices of the past, to ensure that justice reaches the common man. They are supposed to be able administrators. But the present system of appointment, it seems, gives us only short-sighted pygmies as Chief Justices -- men who don't feel sufficiently responsible and sufficiently empowered to change the system. And so they just hold hearings till they retire and get a cushy government job. Tragic.