Panel to examine long vacations for Supreme Court judges

New Delhi, Dec 26 Judges of the higher judiciary have long enjoyed a work calendar with holidays matching those of schoolchildren, but a parliamentary panel has decided to step in and examine whether the long vacations are really necessary.

As Supreme Court and high court judges take a break during the ongoing fortnight long year-end holiday, the Parliamentary Standing Committee for the Ministry of Law and Justice has decided to examine the need and rationality of long vacations in the apex court.

Said the panel's Chairman and Rajya Sabha Member E.M.S. Natchiappan: "We are currently examining several issues of legal reform. We will also examine the rationality of continuing with the British legacy of long vacations in the judiciary."

"It has also been brought to the committee's notice that the backlog of cases in the apex court has begun rising of late. We would like to examine if vacations have a bearing on the rising trend of backlog of cases there," Natchiappan told IANS.

He said the committee would like to examine the work schedule of judges like the time taken in hearing cases, reading various case files and laws, writing verdicts and whether long vacations aid or hinder their work.

Beginning Dec 17, the Supreme Court is officially on a winter break, nearly a week before Delhi schools called it a year. The court closed amid fiercely divided legal opinion over the need for long holidays in the judiciary, which often makes news for having more holidays than working days.

The total number of days of work for it, as per its 2007 calendar, works out to a meagre 176 out of 365 days. For the remaining 189 days, more than six months of the year, it was on holiday.

The holidays included roughly 104 Saturdays and Sundays, nearly two months of summer vacation, a week each of Diwali and Dussehra breaks, besides several other offs that ranged from a day to a week.

"Even the highest US court, where individual judges do not have to adjudicate more than 150 cases, does not have more than three to four months of holidays in a year," said senior advocate K.K. Venugopal.

The British legacy of a long summer vacation has been continuing since independence. This year, the Supreme Court closed for summer from May 21 to July 8, compared to several schools that closed from May 15 to July 1.

While there could be a rationale for closing schools for two months in the scorching summer of Delhi, the apex court and high court judges have air-conditioned cars to commute and air-conditioned courtrooms to work in, said advocate Prashant Bhushan.

The rationale to close down courts in summer is questionable, he added.

Besides the holidays and vacations, individual judges are entitled to their own quota of leaves, according to the provisions of Supreme Court Judges' salary and other Condition of Service Act, 1958.

Depending upon the number of years of service, they are also entitled to a certain number of off days on full salary, some on half salary and on quarter salary too.

Official data from the Department of Justice reveals that the number of cases pending in the apex court had come down to 19,806 in 1998 from a whopping 104,936 in 1991. But it's rising again. At the beginning of 2006, it had risen to nearly 29,000 and by November 2007 it was 46,000.

Despite the rising backlog of cases, some lawyers support long vacations in the judiciary on ground of "tremendous work pressure" on judges.

"Every day, a bench of two to three judges hears around 50 cases. The cases listed on Mondays go up to 70 while it's around 40 on Fridays. They also have to read the voluminous files every evening before hearing them the next day," said a lawyer.

He added: "They also need time to write judgments, which cannot be written in open courts. And they end up doing all these work during holidays or vacations, which they deserve."

But Venugopal disagreed: "It's true that Supreme Court judges do a lot of work even at home. Yet, the apex court needs to arrest the rising trend of the backlog of cases and reducing their long vacations may be one way out." - IANS

Parliamentary panel faults bill on errant judges

New Delhi, Aug 17 (IANS) A parliamentary panel Friday recommended drastic changes in a proposed law to discipline errant judges, virtually junking the bill in its original form.

The changes recommended to the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2006, ranged from the composition of the proposed National Judicial Council (NJC) to an impeached judge's right to move the apex court.

Strongly disapproving the all-judge composition of the NJC, the panel, headed by Rajya Sabha member E.M.S Natchiappan, asked the government to broad base it and include members from the executive, legislature and from among the lawyers as well.

The panel, referring to the judiciary's last word in appointment of judges, said, "Judges appointing judges is bad enough in itself; judges judging judges is worse."

The panel also recommended complete omission of section 30 of the bill, which entitles an impeached judge to move the Supreme Court against the president's order of his dismissal passed on the basis of a two-third majority decision of both houses of parliament.

"The president's order of removal of a judge is the result of parliament's decision after due process and resolution of 2/3rd majority by each house. Therefore, allowing the president's decision to be challenged by a dismissed judge is totally unwarranted and uncalled for," said the panel, following a nine-month-long scrutiny of the bill.

The panel, officially known as the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Ministry of Law and Justice, also fiercely disapproved other provisions of the bill, which would amount to curtailment of parliament's existing power on removing judges.

"The committee takes strong exception to the fact that the provisions of the bill have the effect of curtailing the parliament's right to discuss about the conduct of a judge," it said in a report.

"The committee categorically observes that the powers of the parliament with regard to impeachment of a judge should in no case be diluted or shifted to any other institution or body," the panel said.

In a suggestion, not related to the scrutiny of the bill, the panel also suggested providing for reservation for scheduled castes, tribes and other backward classes people for appointment as judges in the higher judiciary "to meet the ends of social justice and equity".

Bill allowing judges to challenge sacking may change

New Delhi, July 8 (IANS) A parliamentary panel is to recommend changes in a draft bill that it says allows errant high court or Supreme Court judges to mount an elaborate challenge on presidential orders dismissing them, government sources said.

Instead, the panel wants an impeached judge to be entitled to only a brief Supreme Court review of their dismissal order, said a senior law ministry official privy to the proceedings of the parliamentary panel on the law and justice ministry, which last met June 25.

The panel, which examined the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2006, is to recommend that the government modify Section 30 which entitles an impeached judge to go in an appeal before the Supreme Court and seek a detailed examination of the president's order.

The bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha Dec 19, 2006, seeks to establish an institutional mechanism to probe charges, such as corruption and inefficiency, brought against Supreme or high court judges. It recommends the establishment of a body - to be known as the National Judicial Council (NJC) - comprising the chief justice of India and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court or high court.

Section 30 of the bill, in its present form, reads: "A judge aggrieved by an order of removal passed by the President or the NJC ... may prefer an appeal in the Supreme Court." The panel wants the word 'appeal' to be replaced by 'review'.

The panel zeroed in on Section 30 after law ministry officials explained the subtle differences between the legal processes of review and appeal. The panel was told that the process of appeal entails a close and detailed judicial examination of the executive's decision - both on the grounds of facts and the law.

On the other hand, a judicial review is limited to a brief examination of a decision only on the grounds of law and not fact, the panel was told.

The panel was told that as the President's decision to dismiss a judge under the Judges Enquiry Bill would be based on the recommendation made by the Chief Justice of India and other senior-most judges, it would be illogical to subject the President's decision to an elaborate examination.

It was also pointed out to the panel that the Supreme Court's power of judicial review is one of the basic features of the Constitution - as held by the Apex court in the Kesavananda Bharati case, in which executive dictates suspending certain fundamental rights during the Emergency had been challenged.

Eminent jurist and former law minister Ram Jethmalani, expressing his opposition to the bill, had told IANS: "Section 30 is the most foolish provision of the bill."

The panel has finished its examination of the bill and is presently drafting its recommendations, hoping to table them in the upcoming monsoon session of parliament.

- By Rana Ajit (C) IANS

Bill on errant judges: House panel finalises recommendations

New Delhi, June 25 (IANS) A parliamentary panel Monday finalised its recommendations to the government on a bill for setting up an institutional mechanism to discipline errant judges of higher judiciary.

After a daylong crucial last meeting on the issue, E.M.S. Natchiappan, chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Law and Justice Ministry, said: "We finalised our recommendations on the bill for the government today. Now the officials will start drafting them, which I hope would be finished by the second week of July.

"Once they are drafted, the report will be ready for tabling in parliament during the forthcoming monsoon session," Natchiappan told IANS.

Asked about the strong protests that the bill had evoked, he said it had been the committee's endeavour to reach a consensus on its recommendations.

He, however, evaded a direct reply when asked if the committee has reached the consensus that the bill can be passed by parliament without amending the constitution. "It would be part of the recommendation, which I cannot divulge to you. It involves the privileges of the members."

The Judges Inquiry Bill, 2006 seeks to establish National Judicial Council to probe allegations like corruption and inefficiency against judges of the higher judiciary. It was referred to the panel soon after the law ministry introduced it in the Lok Sabha on Dec 19, 2006.

The bill has been facing severe opposition in the lawmakers' panel on various counts, including one of its provisions allowing an impeached judge of the Supreme Court or a high court to challenge in the apex court the president's order dismissing him.

Owing to this provision, the members have been terming the bill as "unconstitutional", saying it cannot be passed without amending the constitution.

Several members, including eminent lawyer and former law minister Ram Jethmalani, have repeatedly questioned Section 30 of the bill, which allows a judge of the higher judiciary to move the apex court against his impeachment.

"Section 30 is the most foolish provision of the bill," Jethmalani had told IANS earlier.

The bill is also facing lawmakers' resistance over a provision, which seeks to make an inquiry against a judge by the National Judicial Council confidential and keeps the probe out of the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

In earlier meetings, several members of the panel have questioned the rationale of making the inquiry process confidential, when even the process of appointment of judges falls within the ambit of the RTI Act.