Collegium Must Question Govt Over Pending Appointments: Justice Abhay S Oka
Former SC judge Justice Abhay S Oka urges the Collegium to question the government over pending appointments and calls for a less CJI-centric roster.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S. Oka has called for a more assertive approach by the Supreme Court Collegium, stating that it must demand answers from the government when recommendations for the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary are left pending for months.
Speaking on the critical issue of accountability for judges within the Supreme Court and various High Courts, Justice Oka emphasized that the delays in appointments are a significant concern. He noted that while there was a brief period last year where 30 to 40 High Court recommendations were cleared within three months, such efficiency was an exception rather than the rule.
Defending the Collegium System
Despite the criticisms often leveled at the method of appointing judges, Justice Oka maintained his support for the current framework. He argued that the Collegium system itself is not the problem, but rather the individuals leading it at any given time.
“I am a firm believer in the Collegium system. Maybe there are certain persons at the helm of affairs who may not implement it properly, but that does not make the system bad,” he stated.
He suggested that the system should continue to operate until a superior alternative is introduced to replace it, acknowledging that while mistakes may occur due to those in charge, the systemic structure remains sound.
Transparency Beyond the Website
Addressing the issue of transparency, Justice Oka pointed out a common misconception regarding the publication of Collegium resolutions. He argued that simply uploading detailed resolutions to the Supreme Court website does not equate to true transparency.
According to him, genuine transparency must be embedded in the actual functioning and the internal processes followed by the Collegium, rather than just the public disclosure of final decisions.
Defining Judicial Accountability
Justice Oka provided a comprehensive view of what constitutes judicial accountability, stating that it begins with the very first step a judge takes in office.
- The Oath: Accountability starts with the oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of India.
- Scope of Responsibility: It extends to judicial decisions, the management of rosters, Collegium appointments, and the handling of complaints against judges.
- Priority: He stressed that every dimension of accountability should be strengthened, provided it does not compromise the rights of litigants seeking timely justice.
The Need for Roster Reform
A significant portion of Justice Oka's critique focused on the administrative functioning of the Supreme Court, specifically the roster system. He argued that the current system is too "CJI-centric" and lacks the clarity found in some High Courts.
The Problem with Manual Intervention
Justice Oka highlighted the uncertainty lawyers and litigants face when they do not know which bench will hear their cases. He criticized the lack of an auto-dating system for fixing cases, noting that when similar categories of cases are assigned to multiple benches, it raises questions about who decides the specific listing.
He questioned whether the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or another authority makes these decisions, suggesting that a system with minimal manual intervention—similar to those in High Courts—would make the apex court more accountable.
A Warning Against Hero-Worship
Drawing a parallel to the warnings of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Justice Oka cautioned against the culture of hero-worship. He suggested that the excessive concentration of administrative power within the office of the Chief Justice could contribute to such a culture, further emphasizing the need for structural administrative shifts to ensure a more balanced and transparent judiciary.