Does CJI DY Chandrachud leave the Supreme Court, as an institution, in a better place than where he found it?
Two years is a short term in most positions, but for the office of the Chief Justice of India, it is practically an eternity. It allows CJIs to plan and undertake long–term reform of the court and get the buy-in of their colleagues to see it through. The term also allows the CJI to exercise greater control over the SC registry and ensure that it works smoothly.
This is not what has happened in the SC during DY Chandrachud’s term. Over the course of the two years, the growing pendency of cases and the arbitrary and haphazard manner in which the cases are listed continued to pose problems, undermining the credibility and efficiency of the institution.
Listing mess
As the Master of the Roster, the CJI continues to decide, unilaterally, what kinds of cases go to which benches. Whether it is allocating subject matters to certain benches or posting specific cases before specific benches, it is the sole prerogative of the CJI. Since the time of CJI Dipak Misra, the arbitrary use of the powers of the Master of the Roster has made people doubt the impartiality and credibility of the court. For a court to refuse to do anything to limit the complete discretion of the CJI on deciding what cases should be listed before which bench is simply untenable. Especially when it keeps insisting that every other wing of the government should justify its actions.
Unfortunately, this is what we saw happen in the SC.
As with some CJIs in the recent past, Chandrachud continued the trend of listing “politically sensitive” matters before judges who were more inclined to decide in favour of the Union Government. Former JNU student Umar Khalid’s bail appeal pending in the SC is a classic example of this. The combinations of benches before which the case was listed have changed inexplicably, the matter has been tagged and de-tagged without explanation, and eventually, the appeal was withdrawn after languishing for several months without an effective hearing in the court.
It was not just that certain kinds of cases went to certain judges. Cases that judges had directed to be listed before them were deleted from the cause list. The most egregious example of this has been mentioned in the second article in my series on the CJI’s legacy. Notably, this deletion of cases from the cause list has happened far too often. Members of the SC Bar complained to the CJI about facing problems in getting cases listed and heard, but to no avail. As the Master of the Roster, it is the CJI’s responsibility to ensure that cases are listed in a systematic and fair manner, and on this front, Chandrachud did not deliver.
Also read: Making sense of DY Chandrachud’s legacy isn’t easy. It’s complicated, confounding
Pending cases
When Chandrachud took over as CJI in November 2022, there were 69,781 cases pending in the Supreme Court. As of 29 October 2024, there were 82,668 cases pending. Some of the jump in the number of pending cases is because the SC changed how it counts pending cases in 2022. However, as per Supreme Court data, it is clear that the court has been unable to dispose of even as many cases that are filed in the SC in a given year, adding to the backlog. This has happened in both the years that Chandrachud was CJI, indicating a lack of institutional focus on timely disposal.
This exposes the hollowness of the technological interventions that have taken place in Chandrachud’s time. No one disputes that the SC judges and lawyers have become much more tech–savvy in the last couple of years. Judges sit with laptops during hearings, and lawyers now argue off tablets and laptops themselves. Journalists were given access to the Supreme Court’s “war room” to show how 21st-century the Supreme Court has become.
Unfortunately, this tech infusion has done little to the one metric that matters most to litigants and the general public – has the court been able to hear and dispose of cases quickly? The answer, from the court’s own data, is ‘no’. It seems as though the technology has been introduced to make the court look good rather than actually run well.
Also read: DY Chandrachud ceded control to the govt. It took over judicial appointment process
Self-aggrandising changes
Superficial steps that only burnish the CJI’s image has been a hallmark of Chandrachud’s changes on the administrative side of the SC. The new logo, the new statue of the Goddess of Justice, and the Supreme Court museum, among other measures, seem to have been taken with little consultation or even discussion with fellow judges, let alone the Bar. These changes prompted a strong pushback from the Supreme Court Bar Association.
To the outside observer, the changes Chandrachud has introduced seem to be designed to leave behind a permanent imprint on the Supreme Court and thereby secure his “legacy”. However, they have had just the opposite effect. His legacy will be that of having put a fresh coat of paint on an institution which needed structural changes. While reform of the SC is not just in the hands of the CJI, even those which he could have started, he did not.
This article is the last in a 3-part series on DY Chandrachud’s legacy as the Chief Justice of India.
Alok Prasanna Kumar is a co-founder of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Views expressed here are personal.
(Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)
The system of Master of the Roster needs streamlining. Recall it was an issue that led to that famous press conference.
People like Alok Prasanna Kumar will not utter a single word against the blatant nepotism in judicial circles. The new CJI, Mr. Khanna, too is a product of nepotism.
It seems as if there is absolutely no way for a person to be a High Court or Supreme Court judge without coming from a “distinguished” legal family.
A man with humble origins simply cannot aspire for the exalted position of the Lordships of High Courts and Supreme Court. These positions are reserved for the legal elite society.
It’s such a shame!