BY MOHAMMAD TARIQUE SALEEM
Six hundred lawyers of the Supreme Court wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India that some senior lawyers have formed a gang and are exerting political and professional pressure. This is a selfish group which is trying to put pressure on the judiciary and discredit the courts on the basis of useless arguments and a stale political agenda. The kind of language and things written in this letter is an advice, a warning or a threat to the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. Just as the debate on this had started among the people, within a few minutes a message came on X from Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
In a recent development that has stirred the legal and political landscape of India, six hundred lawyers of the Supreme Court penned a letter to the Chief Justice of India, raising concerns over alleged misconduct and exertion of pressure by senior lawyers. The letter, signed by prominent legal figures including Adish Agarwal, Manan Kumar Mishra, Harish Salve, and others, accused a faction of senior lawyers of forming a group to influence judicial decisions and discredit the courts through political manoeuvring.
The crux of the letter revolves around the assertion that certain lawyers, purportedly aligned with political interests, are leveraging their legal prowess during the day to defend politicians while resorting to media influence and nocturnal pressure tactics to sway judicial outcomes. The letter highlights instances where these lawyers, allegedly affiliated with opposition parties, have colluded to obstruct legal proceedings and impede the course of justice.
However, the ramifications of this missive extend beyond legal discourse, delving into the political arena with lightning speed. Within moments of the letter’s circulation, Prime Minister Narendra Modi weighed in, characterizing the accusations as emblematic of the entrenched culture of bullying associated with the Congress party. Modi’s swift response, coupled with his assertion of a broad public mandate against Congress, reframed the narrative, intertwining legal matters with political rhetoric.
Unveiling the underlying dynamics, it becomes apparent that the letter serves not merely as a cautionary note to the Chief Justice but as a veiled warning, challenging the autonomy of the judiciary and implying repercussions if judicial relief is granted to opposition leaders ensnared in legal battles. The specter of electoral bonds looms large, with PM Modi’s discontent over the Supreme Court’s decision to annul them hinting at potential legislative maneuvers to overturn the verdict.
Yet, amidst the political posturing, the judiciary asserts its independence, issuing a series of consequential directives and statements. Justice BV Nagarathna’s candid critique of demonetization as a scheme to launder black money underscores the judiciary’s vigilance in scrutinizing governmental policies. Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s directive to the Election Commission to enhance transparency in the electoral process, coupled with the grant of bail to a prominent opposition figure, signal a reaffirmation of judicial integrity and impartiality.
The legal landscape witnesses further upheaval with the court’s stern stance against contemptuous behavior, as evidenced by the summoning of yoga entrepreneur Ram Dev for false claims regarding a COVID-19 remedy. This uncompromising stance underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the sanctity of the legal system, regardless of the individual’s stature or political affiliations.
In essence, the confluence of legal proceedings and political agendas underscores the intricate interplay between law and governance in India’s democratic fabric. While the letter from six hundred lawyers exposes fissures within the legal fraternity, it also serves as a catalyst for judicial introspection and reaffirmation of constitutional principles. As the nation navigates these turbulent waters, the resilience of its democratic institutions emerges as the bulwark against undue influence and partisan agendas, ensuring the primacy of justice and the rule of law.
Balancing judicial performance incentives without unintended consequences : The proposal by the Chief Justice of India to reward “super-performing” trial court judges presents an opportunity to enhance the efficiency and excellence of the judiciary. However, it also raises concerns about the potential unintended consequences, echoing the cautionary tale of the Cobra Effect. Goodhart’s Law reminds us that when a measure becomes a target, it may no longer effectively serve its purpose. Incentivizing judges solely based on performance metrics could lead to undesirable outcomes, such as a focus on quantity over quality or the creation of a hostile courtroom atmosphere.
The Cobra Effect, historically observed during British rule in India, illustrates the danger of relying solely on quantitative measures. Offering a bounty on cobras led to an unintended increase in their breeding, demonstrating how well-intentioned incentives can backfire. Similarly, judges incentivized solely on case disposal rates may prioritize quantity over the thorough examination of cases, compromising justice.
To avoid such pitfalls, it is essential to refine the existing evaluation mechanisms rather than overhaul them entirely. While the Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) provide a foundation for assessment, they have shortcomings that need addressing. Scientific assessment of case complexity, recognition of administrative duties, and diverse perspectives in the evaluation process are necessary improvements.
Expanding the metrics beyond quantitative outputs is crucial. Evaluations should consider the quality of judgments, adherence to ethics, and efficiency in case handling. Subjective criteria can be balanced by involving a broader range of stakeholders in the evaluation process. By incorporating feedback loops and multiple metrics, the judiciary can ensure a fair and transparent assessment of judges’ performance.
Moreover, the evaluation process should not be an end in itself but a means to attract and retain top legal talent. Confidence in a fair evaluation process is essential for retaining talented judges. However, this confidence diminishes if there is a persistent glass ceiling within the judiciary.
Justice Bela Trivedi’s observation regarding limited opportunities for trial court judges to become High Court judges underscores the need to address structural barriers. Less than one-third of High Court judge positions are filled by district court judges, perpetuating a system where trial court judges face limited upward mobility. Removing this glass ceiling is imperative to ensure that performance incentives are meaningful and equitable.
In conclusion, incentivizing judges to perform better is a commendable initiative, but it must be approached cautiously to avoid unintended consequences. Building on the existing evaluation mechanisms and broadening the metrics beyond mere quantitative outputs is key. Additionally, addressing structural barriers, such as the glass ceiling, is essential for ensuring fairness and equity within the judiciary. By striking this balance, the judiciary can promote accountability, excellence, and continuous improvement among its officers.