English
English
English
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka calls for greater sensitivity to the workload and practical challenges faced by trial court judges. (IMG: X)
New Delhi: Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka has called for a more transparent and predictable system for allocating cases to benches, asserting that once a roster is in place, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) should not manually interfere with the listing of individual matters.
Speaking at a seminar on judicial accountability organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms in New Delhi on Tuesday, Justice Oka questioned the existing mechanism for distributing cases among Supreme Court benches.
He said the present arrangement leaves uncertainty over how a particular matter is assigned when several benches are authorised to hear cases belonging to the same category. Justice Oka argued that a properly designed roster should eliminate the possibility of discretionary intervention in case allocation and strengthen institutional accountability.
Pointing to the Supreme Court's subject-wise roster, Justice Oka observed that certain categories of cases are assigned to more than one bench. This, he said, leaves lawyers and litigants uncertain about which bench will ultimately hear a particular matter.
He questioned who decides the allocation when a case falls within a category assigned to several benches the CJI or the Registry. According to him, the absence of a clear mechanism creates room for manual intervention and undermines the predictability expected from the listing process.
Justice Oka maintained that the roster should function as an objective administrative framework rather than leave individual case allocation open to discretionary decisions. He also remarked that the Supreme Court remains excessively centred on the office of the CJI and could become more accountable by adopting a system that limits the scope for manual intervention.
The former judge identified delays in securing the first hearing of newly instituted cases as a major concern for litigants across the country. He noted that listing procedures differ among High Courts. In some jurisdictions, advocates must mention matters before they can be listed, but even that step does not necessarily ensure that the case will come up for hearing.
Justice Oka proposed an automatic listing mechanism under which newly filed cases would receive a hearing date within a prescribed period. He suggested that bail applications could be listed within a day or two, while other matters could be scheduled within approximately a week.
He said a transparent and time-bound process would reduce uncertainty for litigants and limit the possibility of administrative discretion determining which cases are taken up first.
Justice Oka also raised concerns about the preparation and implementation of cause lists in High Courts, particularly instances where cases scheduled for hearing are subsequently excluded from the day's list.
He said such practices could leave litigants without an effective remedy after they have already been given a hearing date. They could also confer excessive discretion on the Registry in determining which matters proceed to court.
Recalling his tenure as a Supreme Court judge, Oka referred to an order he had passed clarifying that the Registry could not remove a matter from the list when a judicial order had directed that it be listed. He stressed that listing procedures must be governed by clear rules to ensure that litigants are not left at the mercy of unpredictable administrative decisions.
On judicial appointments, Justice Oka reaffirmed his support for the collegium system, maintaining that it should not be discarded unless a more effective alternative is available. He acknowledged that the system may have shortcomings in its implementation but said these do not, by themselves, justify replacing it.
At the same time, he emphasised that transparency in judicial appointments must extend to the decision-making process itself. Publishing detailed resolutions explaining the reasons behind recommendations or rejections may not be sufficient, and could also raise concerns about the privacy of individuals considered for judicial office.
Justice Oka cautioned that excessive disclosure of personal information could discourage eligible lawyers from agreeing to be considered for judicial appointments. He further stressed that accountability cannot be confined to the judiciary.
The government must also be answerable for delays in acting on collegium recommendations, and the Supreme Court should consistently press for timely decisions on appointments. Referring to pending proceedings concerning delays in clearing recommendations, he questioned whether the judiciary was doing enough to ensure compliance with prescribed timelines.
Justice Oka expressed concern over directions issued by constitutional courts requiring subordinate courts to dispose of cases within fixed deadlines without adequately considering the practical challenges involved.
Drawing on his experience as a guardian judge, he said trial court judges frequently deal with complex criminal proceedings involving large numbers of witnesses while simultaneously managing substantial backlogs and other time-bound matters.
He observed that unrealistic deadlines can add to the pressure on judicial officers and potentially affect the quality of adjudication.
The former judge referred to the Supreme Court's position that time-bound disposal directions to trial courts should ordinarily be issued only in exceptional circumstances. He called for greater sensitivity to the working conditions of subordinate judiciary while framing such directions.
He also advocated a more rational transfer policy for district and trial court judges, taking into account their workload and the nature of cases assigned to them.
Justice Oka identified consistent adherence to judicial precedent as another essential component of accountability. He expressed concern about instances in which benches of equal strength do not follow decisions rendered by coordinate benches.
He also called for greater restraint in entertaining review and curative petitions, emphasising that these remedies are exceptional in nature and should remain confined to the circumstances recognised by law.
Justice Oka maintained that citizens have the right to critically examine and debate judgments delivered by constitutional courts, provided such criticism is reasoned and objective. He said a healthy exchange of views on judicial decisions can contribute to better adjudication and improve the quality of justice.
At the same time, he cautioned against attributing motives to judges merely because a judgment favours or goes against the government. He stressed that judicial decisions should be assessed on their legal reasoning rather than their political implications.
He also noted that judges who deliver strong or unconventional judgments may face criticism and complaints, making it necessary to develop accountability mechanisms that do not undermine judicial independence.
