Government and judiciary responsible for mess
Poor infrastructure and personnel shortage have plagued the Indian judiciary for decades, though it is unlikely that the Chief Justice of India's impassioned plea, moving as it may have been, to the Government will lead to radical reform. However, if the unprecedented act of the country's senior-most justice breaking down before a high-profile audience that included other Supreme Court judges, High Court Chief Justices, former Chief Justices of India, the Union Minister for law and Justice, and the Prime Minister can force some momentum into the issue and push it up the nation's priority list, then that shall be an achievement, no doubt.
There are no two ways around the fact that protecting and upholding the rule of law lies at the core of every state and is the single most important responsibility of the state mechanism. Without the rule of law, there is no state, no society, no civilisation. The importance of the judiciary (along with law-enforcement agencies, which are, generally speaking, also in an equally bad shape) in this equation need not be further emphasised but let it be said that a creaking judiciary, already bursting at its seams, is as much a threat to national interest as say a terror attack. Unfortunately, there is little to suggest that this issue is getting the attention it deserves.
Every now and then, the matter comes up usually with a news story or a panel recommendation, and people shake their head in dismay, and soon its back to square one. Everybody is aware of the facts on the ground — the appalling judge to population ration, the crippling vacancies, the ever-growing burden of pending cases and how justice is often delayed to such an extent that it might as well have been denied. Everybody is also well-aware of what needs to be done to fix this problem: Increase the number of judges. It may not be possible to pull up the numbers overnight but it can be done over a period of time, once a long-term plan is put in place. In the short-term, one can also experiment with bringing back from retirement some old hands. These are fairly obvious suggestions and have been floating around for ages. The problem is that precious little has been done to implement them.
In this regard, the Government is, of course, to blame, and Justice Thakur was well within his rights to bristle at the accusation that court breaks add to pendency problem. That said, it is somewhat unfair for the judiciary to place all the blame at the Government's doorsteps. For example, on the limited issue of the number of working days for judges, while the Chief Justice has drawn attention to his hardworking colleagues, it is also a fact that in the lower courts especially there is little accountability for attendance and performance. There are many steps that the judiciary can also take, but hasn't, to fix the situation. There is rampant corruption in the judiciary and it needs to be checked before it erodes public faith in the system. Red-tapism, nepotism and bribery are common in the lower courts, while in the higher courts there have been several instances of ineptitude and moral turpitude. Even Chief Justices of High Courts and the Supreme Court have come under the scanner, and repeatedly so.