The Supreme Court itself has said that judgments can’t be reserved for over three months. However, it continues to flout its own rule.
Amidst all the controversial events in the Supreme Court over the last few weeks, one particular bench of two judges has been toiling away. Justices R.K. Agarwal and Abhay Manohar Sapre have been delivering a few verdicts daily before they start to hear cases.
Between 26 March and 25 April, the bench delivered 38 judgments. That’s more than one judgement every working day. However, between 25 February and 26 March, the bench delivered just 8 judgments.
Presently the bench hurriedly finishes their list of cases by noon every day, and then rush back home, perhaps to write some more judgments. But why are they in such a hurry? The reason is that Justice Agarwal retires in a few days and has to pronounce verdicts in all the cases he’s heard during his four years in the apex court.
Last year, former CJI J.S. Khehar, retired with two judgments, that define his legacy, as a parting shot – the ruling declaring triple talaq unconstitutional, and another recognising the right to privacy as a fundamental right. The historic Kesavananda Bharati ruling, that was delivered exactly 45 years ago, was pronounced on the eve of then CJI S.M. Sikri’s retirement.
For almost every judge, the number of judgments delivered peaks during the week of the judge’s retirement. Many legal experts have critiqued this practice. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran has said, “Growth of the law should not be stunted by dates of superannuation.”
Yet, this trend continues.
The selective following of the court’s rules
In 2012, the Supreme Court itself had said that no judgement can be reserved for more than three months. Like many of the court’s own rules, this too, is often ignored.
In the disproportionate assets case involving former Tamil Nadu chief minister J. Jayalalithaa, the apex court reserved the ruling in July 2016. However, the verdict was delivered only a year later, that too after she had died. This unexplained delay raised several questions. Recently, Justice Chelameswar said at an event that this delay indicates the bench might have been handpicked to arrive at a predetermined ruling.
Similarly, the Cauvery verdict was reserved for months and was pronounced days before Justice Amitava Roy retired. Questions were raised if the ruling was somehow timed to factor in the assembly elections in Karnataka.
A few years ago, a delayed judgment kicked up a political storm in the Kerala High Court. An ambitious eviction drive by the government protect its land from encroachments was declared unconstitutional by the high court. The government, unable to find fault with the reasoning of the verdict, protested that it was invalid because the ruling was delivered nine months after the court reserved the verdict. It was more embarrassing for the judiciary, since the chief justice who delivered the verdict had been transferred to another high court when a fresh hearing was a possibility due to the delayed judgement.
Clearly, this trend does not bode well for the judiciary or the litigants.
In 2015, the Supreme Court registry directed all high courts to share data on all cases in which judgments have been reserved for over three months. Although a laudable exercise, the data has merely been gathering dust. The apex court itself does not inspire confidence compared to the 24 high courts, given reserving judgements for long periods of time is so common.
In contrast, consider how the Kenyan Supreme Court handled last year’s historic verdict declaring the country’s national elections invalid and calling for fresh polls. The judges “retreated” for three days after the hearing was over to mull over it and write their judgment. In many other jurisdictions, “reserving judgments” is unusual. Often, detailed reasons are assigned later, but a short summary is read out instantly.
In the case of Justice Agarwal’s rulings, many delivered over the last few weeks are relatively very short 10-20 page dismissals of appeals against rulings of high courts and tribunals. At least 20 such verdicts were reserved three to four months ago.
However, just last month, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra revised the roster and justice Agarwal was given additional cases related to election matters. When a judge is racing against time in the weeks before he retires, it is detrimental to allocate him more work.
That explains why a judge simply adjourns any fresh cases, or cases that require lengthy arguments, that are brought before him. But when judges decide to deliver verdicts according to their convenience, the right to judge is severely undermined. In this madness, it is the litigants who are left helpless.
Justice is not the business of only judges. Litigants must demand timely decisions and actively pursue cases. Perhaps then judges will begin to get their house in order.