Several references have been made on the quality of judges, specifically in the lower judiciary. How can this be remedied?

Candidates who are to be elevated should be recommended by all judges, not a select few. However, the truly meritorious ones should be evaluated by a collegium in the High Court. While reports prepared by the Intelligence Bureau are essential, it will only reflect the conduct of the judges. Opinions of senior counsels from the bar must also be ought to get a clearer and more wholesome picture.

Is there a clear and independent mechanism to investigate allegations of impropriety against judges?

No. An in-house procedure needs to be created in consultation with the Executive. The judiciary needs to come forward and make the process more transparent. Parliament is competent enough to step in, if need be. However, the government prefers the judiciary steps up and takes initiative in creating a full-proof mechanism to look into complaints. In a democracy, no institution should be left unaccountable and that includes the Judiciary.

Appellate courts should also be empowered to penalise judges who misuse powers or pass absurd orders (referring to the verdict by a Rajasthan HC judge who said peacocks are celibate). If the appellate court finds a judge without merit, suitable provisions should be there to retire the said judge.

Even the procedure for impeachment should be less complex. The reform needs to come from within the judiciary itself.

There is a huge push towards the digitisation of courts. Do you find that there is some hesitance in accepting this change?

Yes, there is some reluctance from within. The judges are not as accepting of technology. This reflects in the day-to-day functions. Orders are not uploaded on time, and the websites, especially of the lower courts, are not that informative. The Executive alone cannot do magic. The Executive, judiciary and the bar will have to work together on this issue. Implementation and strict adherence to timelines for execution is important.

How can one reduce the pendency of cases and delays?

Reducing arrears is not difficult. Reducing pendency and vacancy is not a panacea. As a lawyer, I find that if a judge understands the issue and grasps the matter, then dispensation of justice is quick. However, if a judge does not understand the matter, then time is wasted. Judges that delay matters should be punished. The pass the post system is not acceptable. If bureaucrats and politicians can be removed for corruption, then why not judges? Public representatives fear reprisals and are thus accountable. Judiciary is an organ, an important one, of a free and thriving democracy. The need of the hour is that judges should be held accountable. If accountability is removed from a democracy, then it is no longer a democracy.

There have been many attacks on the judges. How does that affect the image of the Judiciary?

When charges are levelled against a judge, it is very difficult for him to defend himself, more so if they are bogus. Honest judges should be protected from vicious targeted attacks. Hence, there is a need for a mechanism to protect his reputation. This can be done, if there is a separate body to look into these issues.

Is there a need for more women on the bench?

There is no reservation in the higher judiciary. The government has written to the Chief Justices to recommend candidates who are women, SC/ST, OBC, Tribals and minorities.