Internal Rift in Judiciary

Why in news?

Four senior judges of the Supreme Court held a press conference and publicly accused the Chief Justice of India for his biased decisions.

What is the convention?

• The Chief Justice is indeed the master of the roster, a well-settled law reflected in a Constitution Bench judgment in 1998.
• The convention of the court demands that important cases of public interest or sensitive matters should be first heard by the CJI.
• If the CJI is not willing for some reason to hear the case, it should be assigned to the next senior-most judge in the Supreme Court.
• Instead of that, such cases were assigned to certain Benches and eventually given a quiet burial.

What is the present allegation?

• The four senior-most judges after the CJI have alleged that the administration of the Supreme Court was not in order.
• Certain Supreme Court judges arrogated to themselves the “authority to deal with and pronounce upon” cases, over the past months.
• They also alleged the CJI, Dipak Misra of misusing administrative powers to selectively assign cases to judges of his choice.

• Notably, certain cases of far-reaching consequences to the nation have been assigned without any rational basis.
• The senior judges now only question the 'how' and not the 'who' in regards with the administrative power of assigning the cases.

How did the dissent erupt?

• Judges Bribery Case - The germ that led to the current conflict could be the controversial medical college bribery case. Click here to know more.
• The case raised charges of judicial corruption and possible conflict of interest if Justice Misra were to hear it. 
• Fake encounter case - B.H. Loya was the CBI judge hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh's alleged fake encounter case.
• The senior judges had held a meeting with the CJI expressing their reservations about assignation of a related petition to a particular Bench.
• The petition was in regard with seeking an independent probe into the mysterious death of CBI judge Loya.
• The ‘fake encounter’ case involves the BJP president Amit Shah who was an accused but later discharged.
• The political sensitivity of the matter lead to doubts that judicial allocations could be influenced by external political hand.
• Internal efforts for redressal - The senior judges have earlier collectively addressed their concerns to the CJI through a letter.
• They have tried the procedural means to persuade the Chief Justice to take remedial measures.
• Media - Having exhausted of the internal options, the judges have now circulated the letter at the press meet and made it public.

Is it a breach?

• The judges have transcended the judicial protocol that sitting judges should not interact with the media.
• However, this comes as an effort to protect the democracy and the independence of judiciary which are allegedly at stake.
• The internal rift poses the risk of diminishing the image of the judiciary and thus needs unconventional remedies.

What is the way forward?

• The government must stay away from the internal conflict in the judiciary.
• However, it could disclose its position on the Memorandum of Procedure for judicial appointments and communicate it to the Supreme Court. (Click here to know more).
• The Chief Justice could convene a meeting of the full court and pay heed to the concerns to try internally resolving the conflict.
• The unprecedented internal dissension in judiciary is a moment for collective introspection for the nation on democratic institutions.

Source: The Hindu