New Delhi: Former Supreme Court judge Justice J. Chelameswar Tuesday called out some judges for being “lazy” and taking years to write judgments, saying that despite such allegations being levelled against them, the collegium often doesn’t take any action against them.
“Some allegations may come before collegium but nothing is done usually. If allegations are serious maybe action should be taken. The general solution is to just transfer judges…Some judges are just lazy and take years and years to write judgments. some judges are inefficient,” the judge was quoted as saying by Bar and Bench, adding, “Now if I say anything I will get trolled tomorrow saying why is he saying all this after he retired but that is my fate. But recently SC remanded two judgments from an HC because it could not understand what its judgments said.”
Chelameswar was speaking on ‘Is Collegium Alien to the Constitution?’ at a seminar at Kochi’s Kerala HC Auditorium, organised by the Kerala High Court Unit of the Bharatheeya Abhibhashaka Parishad.
Talking about recording proceedings of the collegium, the judge said, “I was very controversial when I said please at least record why you are rejecting, accepting or transferring a judge. The truth is nothing is recorded….”
Speaking on the collegium system, the judge referred to the argument that the text of the Constitution does not contain the word “collegium”. He then questioned, “My friends, who are all lawyers, is there anything in the constitution which says freedom of press? If this argument is accepted, all such things, including freedom of press, can go.”
Also read: ‘A huge resource’ — In a first, SC uses AI for live transcription of its hearings
‘Nobody talking about common man waiting for years in corridors of court’
While speaking at the seminar, Chelameswar emphasised on the independence of the judiciary and it being an essential element for survival of any democracy. “Just imagine what would happen otherwise. Imagine what a policeman can do. Not that they are bad but they have power and they could become a law unto themselves,” he was quoted as saying.
He also asserted that “governments always prefer an executive friendly judiciary at the very least,” according to LiveLaw.
In his dissenting judgment in the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) case, Chelameswar had lashed out at the secrecy and lack of transparency in how judges are appointed to the highest constitutional courts. He even refused to participate in collegium meetings until there was some record made of what transpired in them.
However, he now clarified, “In my judgment I never said hand the selection over to the executive. I know the dangers of it.”
He ended his speech saying, “Nobody is talking about the common man waiting for years in the corridors of the court or how to improve the system. This is something that needs our attention. For the sake of your children, make the right decisions. That’s all I have to say.”
(Edited by Zinnia Ray Chaudhuri)
Also read: Victim or criminal? How law finds itself in knots when a battered woman kills her abuser