Hold free, frank talks at earliest: Ex-CJI RM Lodha
, ET Bureau|
Jan 13, 2018, 07.39 AM IST
Former Chief Justice RM Lodha tells ET that the controversy triggered by the four senior judges should have been avoided. Excerpts:
How did you deal with allocation of work during your tenure?
Rostering is exclusively the role of the CJI. Having said that, I must add that a lot depends on the case itself. There is a subject-wise assignment system between benches. The public knows of this. We have a computerised system.
Therefore, it is not something that cannot be sorted out, could not have been sorted out. I really cannot say what went wrong as I am no longer in the system.
But I went strictly by seniority as a matter of policy to avoid allegations of arbitrariness.
No one can then raise a finger. It ensures a uniform policy, brings in transparency and helps in avoiding 'pickn-choose'. These are practices based on convention. No judge is senior, or junior.
All judges are equal. Usually the top ten or 11 head benches. Matters were assigned to them (during my time) on the basis of seniority. This is the best way.
What prompted the judges to take their grievances to the people?
I am deeply pained by what has happened. It is extremely sad. This has damaged the institution. The manner in which it was done could have been avoided. It could have been sorted out with discussions.
Having presided over that court and been a part of it for 21 years, I can only said this is very, very unfortunate.
But knowing the judges, the circumstances must have compelled them. All this is reflected in their letter. Their grievances must have been alarming. They must have deliberated and thought there was no other alternative to deal with their grievances once they took them to the CJI and they were not redressed.
Will this help resolve the problem?
Look, this must have been something that must have come from within their conscience.
Justice Ranjan Gogoi, in fact, said so when he said: 'We are discharging our debt to this country.' It will not help resolving the problem though. They have just placed their stand on the record — that they are not party to what has been happening. I believe that their conscience pricked them and they believed they had no other way to resolve their grievances.
What is the way ahead?
There must be free, fair and frank discussions, at the highest level. It must be done at the earliest so that the damage to the institution is repaired.
How did you deal with allocation of work during your tenure?
Rostering is exclusively the role of the CJI. Having said that, I must add that a lot depends on the case itself. There is a subject-wise assignment system between benches. The public knows of this. We have a computerised system.
Therefore, it is not something that cannot be sorted out, could not have been sorted out. I really cannot say what went wrong as I am no longer in the system.
But I went strictly by seniority as a matter of policy to avoid allegations of arbitrariness.
No one can then raise a finger. It ensures a uniform policy, brings in transparency and helps in avoiding 'pickn-choose'. These are practices based on convention. No judge is senior, or junior.
All judges are equal. Usually the top ten or 11 head benches. Matters were assigned to them (during my time) on the basis of seniority. This is the best way.
What prompted the judges to take their grievances to the people?
I am deeply pained by what has happened. It is extremely sad. This has damaged the institution. The manner in which it was done could have been avoided. It could have been sorted out with discussions.
Having presided over that court and been a part of it for 21 years, I can only said this is very, very unfortunate.
But knowing the judges, the circumstances must have compelled them. All this is reflected in their letter. Their grievances must have been alarming. They must have deliberated and thought there was no other alternative to deal with their grievances once they took them to the CJI and they were not redressed.
Will this help resolve the problem?
Look, this must have been something that must have come from within their conscience.
Justice Ranjan Gogoi, in fact, said so when he said: 'We are discharging our debt to this country.' It will not help resolving the problem though. They have just placed their stand on the record — that they are not party to what has been happening. I believe that their conscience pricked them and they believed they had no other way to resolve their grievances.
What is the way ahead?
There must be free, fair and frank discussions, at the highest level. It must be done at the earliest so that the damage to the institution is repaired.
