Allahabad HC judge flags issues with full court meetings
Allahabad High Court Justice Vinod Diwakar has questioned the quality of deliberations in full court meetings, observing that the concurrence or dissent of individual judges is not recorded in their proceedings.
In an 80-page judgment dated September 28 in the case of Pappu Met alias Pappu vs State of UP and another, Justice Diwakar also said there was an impression that the last two full court meetings were “stage-managed in the manner of a government whipping its members through a confidence vote”.
He also noted that only 16 full court meetings had been convened over the past 10 years, even though the chief justice is required to convene a full court meeting once every three months, excluding the summer vacation.
The judge further called for a recalibration of the chief justice-centric model of high court administration, emphasising the need for a more deliberative, institutionally balanced and participative approach, coupled with stronger institutional accountability.
A full court is a forum comprising all judges of a high court that deliberates on important institutional and administrative matters.
The observations came in a judgment arising from four cases in which the judge flagged issues such as delays in the subordinate judiciary, non-compliance with directions on bail and broader concerns relating to judicial discipline.
Examining the administrative functioning of the high court, Justice Diwakar referred to the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which require the chief justice to convene a full court meeting once every three months, excluding the summer vacation.
However, he observed that only 16 full court meetings had been convened over the past 10 years.
“No matter of general policy, no matter affecting the powers and status of the court, and no annual report on the administration of justice has been placed before the full court during this period,” the judgment said.
It further noted that the annual reports on the administration of justice had neither been placed before the full court nor forwarded to the government as required under the rules.
Questioning whether the full court was functioning as a meaningful collegiate forum, Justice Diwakar said its rationale was founded on the principle of “mutual recognition” of the individual views of judges. He observed that recording resolutions without reflecting the views of individual judges failed to fully serve the institutional purpose of the forum.
The judgment also noted that the minutes of committees constituted by the Chief Justice had never been communicated to the full court, creating an impression that their functioning was independent of the High Court itself.
Justice Diwakar further observed that the allocation of work was not linked to performance and that there were “no defined, codified and notified parameters” governing consideration for elevation and promotion.
“Above all, decisions taken on the administrative side attract no accountability and are not subjected to audit by any independent agency,” the judgment said, referring to the need to fix accountability in cases of proven favouritism, partisanship or other extraneous considerations.
The judge cautioned that failure to address these issues with restraint could erode institutional discipline and undermine the rule of law.
He directed the registrar (compliance) of the high court to place the judgment before the chief justice “for His Lordship’s kind perusal and for such further steps as His Lordship may deem fit and appropriate in respect of the issues noticed herein”.
