Hon.
Chairman Sir, I thank you for giving me the
opportunity to speak on this Bill. I do not think I fall in the category
of the great speakers who spoke before me because they are all lawyers. The
major contention here is whether the additional benefits mentioned in this
Bill will apply from the first day on the completion of the 80th year. I
think most of the Members understand why this Bill is being brought by
the Government. There was confusion because additional quantum of pensions
and family pensions were given to the judges after their retirement. I think
the Government has made a right choice because there is confusion between
the two judgements which are contradicting each other.120 One judgement said that on the
completion of 79th year, you should start it. Another judgement said that it140 (1) should start at the
beginning of the 80th year. The Government has come forward to iron out the
differences and160 make it
clear by saying that the first month after completing the year will be
considered.
It
is the duty of the State to ensure that a
retired judge who has given so many years of service to the country is
adequately looked after. I am glad that the Government is doing the right
thing. However, there are certain questions which arise in my mind. As
I said, I am not an advocate. But as a common man I am asking this.240 The ruling party’s Member has made such
a long speech. My honourable friend spoke about the carrot-and-stick
theory being worked here. The Government is ready to accept the demand of the
Judges. At the same time, he spoke280
so much about the appointment of judges, the way the (2) Law Minister is
deprived, and the way the Law Minister does not have any power in the
appointment of judges. In fact, he went on to say that in the320 United States, the Supreme Court judges
are appointed by the President. Was he hinting that a similar system is soon going
to be in place in India? Is it a prelude to that? What the Government is trying
to do is that360 it is
indirectly threatening the present judiciary system through us. It creates a
doubt in my mind. I am sure that you will answer this.
Are
you planning to bring a Bill? If you are going to bring a Bill, please
do that. You are the most powerful party here. In the last
seven and a half years,420 you
have done whatever you wanted to do and the Opposition is a mere spectator
because you have been dominating us. Do you have the courage to dominate the
judiciary? (3) I very much doubt it. There is already a lot of suspicion
in the minds of the people. I am speaking like a common man that
you are influencing the480
judiciary. Please do not intervene and unnecessarily rock the judicial
system in which people believe. There is an objection that there has been
a differentiation between the retirement age of judges of the High Courts and
the Supreme Court. A High Court judge has to retire at 62 years of age, but if
he is elevated to the Supreme Court, he can stay up to 65 years of age. Why can
you not have a uniformity? You should do that.560
Please bring a law in this regard instead of threatening the judges
through your colleagues. All judges should have the retirement age of 65 years.
If you want to make it 67 years, please do it. We will welcome it.600 In the Parliament, we will be happy to
do that.(4)
There
has always been a long-standing demand from the
advocates and also from the State Governments for a permanent regional bench in
the Southern region. This has been the demand640 from my party for a very long
time. Geographically, every lawyer situated in Delhi has got an
access to the Supreme Court, whereas lawyers who are born in other corners of
the country do not get a chance. This is not equality. If I am a litigant,
I have to employ a lawyer far away from the region where I reside.700 There has been a demand from all the
parties that there is no social diversity in the appointment of judges.720 There is also no equal
representation of women in the appointment of judges. There is not even
a single person from the Scheduled Tribe community who has been
appointed as a Supreme Court judge. Only five people are there from the
Scheduled Caste community as Supreme Court judges. (5) I am not trying
to go against any community, but only one community seems to be dominating the
whole judicial system in the entire county. This has to change. I am800 not asking for social justice, but this
has to change. Everyone should feel that they are part of the system. While
we have the utmost faith in our judicial system, the recent
happenings have created a lot of suspicion. There should be840 a cooling off period. Judgements
come in favour of the Governments, and then we find that those judges
are elevated. One of them was demoted as a Governor. Another one was demoted as
a Rajya Sabha Member. In both the cases, it is the former Chief
Justices who have been demoted. What does it mean? A common man will
feel that something dubious is going on. An act of any Justice Department or
the Government should be pure, or should look pure to the common man. (6)
Today you have brought this Bill. I want to ask whether the two former
Chief Justices of India whom I mentioned here will be getting the judge’s
pension or will they be960
getting the Governor’s pension or the Rajya Sabha pension. You should bring a
clarity about it.
Independence of judiciary is indispensable980 in a democratic system of governance.
The general contention is that in any democratic county, the judicial
system should be completely free from any sort of pressure or pull, both internal
and external. It may so happen that the Government might abuse the political
power that has been conferred upon it. An independent judiciary is
required to maintain the balance between the interests of individuals
and society. All laws in India derive their authority from the Constitution of
India. All powers of the State and its organs are contained in it and must be
exercised within the limits set out1080
by the Constitution which specifically directs the State (7) to
separate the judiciary from the executive in the public service. The
judiciary has a single pyramidal structure with the lower courts at the bottom,
High Courts in the middle, and the1120
Supreme Court at the top. Today, our justice delivery system is facing
multiple challenges. Two of them are stark and need immediate attention,
namely, appointment of judges and managing the humongous number of
pending cases. On behalf of my party, I have a few suggestions to make. Many
issues are mentioned by hon. Members regarding collegium and pending cases at
all levels in courts. I will not touch those points but as a
representative of the people, as a woman,1200
and as a lawyer, I will make some suggestions.
There
is under-representation of women in higher judiciary. Currently, the Supreme
Court has just four women judges whereas the High Courts have 81 women judges.
Five High Courts have no women judges at all. Overall, the representation of
women in (8) the Supreme court and the High Courts is just nine per1260 cent and eleven per cent respectively.
Given the fact that women constitute 50 per cent of our population, there is1280 a need to provide women with equal
representation in the benches of our judiciary. Sir, as regards providing
recognition to weaker sections and minorities in the higher judiciary, apart
from lack of gender diversity, a glaring lack of social diversity is also
persisting. During the period from 1950 to 1990, close to 50 per cent of the
judges of the Supreme Court were from forward castes. The total number of
SCs and STs in the Supreme Court never crossed ten per cent in this period.
The situation has not improved much since then. It is shocking to know that
since the formation of the Supreme Court, there have been only five
judges belonging to Scheduled Castes and only one judge1400 (9) belonging to Scheduled
Tribes. The situation is not better even in the High Courts. I urge upon the
Government to take necessary steps to promote higher representation of women
and minority groups in our higher judiciary by introducing appropriate
reservation policy.1440
I
request the Government of India on the need for National Judicial Appointments
Commission. Several hon. Members quoted many cases. I would like to quote what
late Shri Arun Jaitley had said. He said that democracy cannot be a tyranny of
the unelected which means that reforms are needed in the judiciary so that
judicial procedure does not become a punishment. There have been reports
that suggest that around 50 per cent of the judges of High Courts and 33 per cent
judges in the Supreme Court are family members of those in higher levels of the
judiciary. There is a strong need to replace the collegium system
with (10) a system similar to the National Judicial Appointments
Commission whereby members outside the judiciary are also included in the
process of making judicial appointments. This will ensure greater
transparency and diversity in the selection process.1585
