Aparna Chandra discusses the issues of pendency in the Indian judiciary, the Supreme Court's role as a 'people's court', challenges with special leave petitions, reforming the judiciary, government influence on court decisions, delays in the legal system, biases in the selection process, balancing national development with individual rights, reform ideas for special leave petitions, and challenges in judicial accountability.
The Supreme Court of India grapples with delays in handling crucial constitutional matters, raising concerns about justice delivery efficiency.
Special-leave petitions overwhelmingly dominate the Supreme Court's docket, shifting focus from constitutional to routine appeals, highlighting systemic challenges.
Judges in the Supreme Court define compassion based on personal biases, potentially overlooking broader societal concerns and marginalizing certain individuals.
Implementing substantial reforms in the Supreme Court faces challenges due to entrenched interests, revolving door judicial appointments, hindering long-term reform efforts.
Deep dives
The Role and Powers of the Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court of India, characterized by both appellate and constitutional jurisdictions, has the authority to address a wide range of legal and constitutional matters. Its powers include being the final court of appeal, handling original jurisdiction cases, and hearing special-leave petitions, a unique discretionary power to take up exceptional cases. However, despite its intended residual nature, special-leave petitions now dominate the court's docket, making up over 90% of the cases heard. This shift has significantly altered the court's focus from primarily constitutional matters to routine appeals, raising questions about its core function.
The Impact of Special-Leave Petitions on the Court's Workload
Special-leave petitions (SLPs) play a crucial role in the Supreme Court's workload and decision-making process. These SLPs, which were designed as a slower track for cases, have inadvertently become a significant source of delay and instability within the court. The absence of clear guidelines on when an SLP will be admitted has led to chance litigation and delaying tactics used by litigants, prolonging the legal process. Additionally, the reliance on proxies, such as the influence of senior advocates, highlights a flawed system that incentivizes delay and favors certain litigants.
Constitutional Cases and Delay in the Supreme Court
Despite being the apex court, the Supreme Court of India grapples with significant delays, particularly in handling constitutional cases. The slowest cases in the court's docket are often those involving crucial constitutional matters, demonstrating a troubling trend of extended processing times. This delay not only affects the timely delivery of justice but also exacerbates the challenges faced by litigants awaiting judicial resolution. The prevalence of extensive delays raises concerns about the effectiveness and efficiency of the legal system.
Incentives and Challenges in the Supreme Court's Decision-Making Process
The Supreme Court of India faces a complex set of incentives and challenges that influence its decision-making process. Judges grapple with the obligation to address wrongly decided cases while balancing institutional considerations and the need to correct legal errors. Additionally, the revolving door nature of judicial appointments and short tenures limit long-term policy planning and structural reforms within the court. The court's reliance on individual case-by-case error correction, coupled with the dominance of special-leave petitions and delays, underscores the systemic challenges that hinder efficient and equitable judicial outcomes.
Judicial Compassion and Bias
Judges in the Supreme Court define compassion based on their own perspectives and biases, often reflecting a limited view. They prioritize cases that align with their perception of compassion, which may not reflect broader societal concerns. The emphasis on their form of compassion results in a lack of empathy towards the most marginalized individuals, highlighting inherent biases within the judicial system.
Challenges in Judicial Reform
The Supreme Court faces challenges in implementing substantial reforms due to entrenched interests and a revolving door system that limits individual judges' ability to bring about significant change. The current system, marked by quick turnovers at the top, hinders long-term reform efforts and perpetuates institutional instability, creating barriers for judges seeking meaningful reform.
Proposed Reforms and System Evaluation
The discussion delves into potential reforms to address the overwhelming volume of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) inundating the court. Suggestions include stricter guidelines for admitting cases, documentary submissions instead of open hearings, and a structured approach to judicial decision-making. Emphasizing the need for clear standards and guidance function, the conversation advocates for a balanced approach to handling cases to streamline the judicial process and enhance accountability in the legal system.
Aparna Chandra is a constitutional scholar and associate professor of law at the National Law school in Bangalore. She is the coauthor, along with Sital Kalantry and William Hubbard of the recent book Court on Trial: A Data-Driven Account of the Supreme Court of India. We spoke about the problem of pendency across all courts in the Indian judiciary, whether the Supreme Court is truly a people’s court, the problem of special leave petitions, potential ways to reform the judiciary, and much more.
