 |
|
The recent recommendation by the Supreme Court collegium to elevate Justices Alok Aradhe and Vipul Manubhai Pancholi to the Supreme Court has sparked a significant controversy, primarily centered around the under-representation of women in the apex court and the apparent disregard for the seniority of several female judges. This decision, made amidst ongoing debates about judicial diversity and the transparency of the collegium system, has raised serious questions about the criteria used for selecting judges and the potential erosion of public trust in the judiciary. The appointment of Justices Aradhe and Pancholi, while undoubtedly based on perceived merit and competence, has nonetheless highlighted the persistent challenges in achieving gender parity and ensuring a fair and equitable representation of diverse perspectives within the highest judicial body in the country. The dissent registered by Justice BV Nagarathna, the sole female judge currently serving on the Supreme Court, further underscores the gravity of the situation and the need for a more thorough and transparent evaluation process that takes into account not only legal expertise but also factors such as seniority, experience, and the overall goal of promoting a more inclusive and representative judiciary. The concerns raised by Justice Nagarathna, coupled with the criticisms voiced by organizations like the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), suggest that the collegium's decision-making process may not be entirely free from biases or inconsistencies, and that a more rigorous and transparent system is needed to ensure that the most qualified and deserving candidates are selected for elevation to the Supreme Court, regardless of their gender or other demographic characteristics. The ongoing debate surrounding the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court is not merely a procedural matter; it has profound implications for the legitimacy and effectiveness of the judiciary as a whole. A court that is perceived as being unrepresentative of the population it serves risks losing the confidence of the public, which in turn can undermine its ability to uphold the rule of law and ensure equal justice for all. Therefore, it is imperative that the collegium take these concerns seriously and adopt a more transparent and inclusive approach to the selection of judges, one that prioritizes merit, competence, and diversity, and that is seen to be fair and equitable by all stakeholders. The elevation of Justices Aradhe and Pancholi comes at a time when the Supreme Court is facing increasing scrutiny over its decisions and its role in safeguarding the fundamental rights of citizens. The court's ability to effectively address these challenges depends in large part on the quality and diversity of its judges, and on the public's perception that the court is acting in a fair and impartial manner. By failing to address the under-representation of women and the concerns raised about the seniority of other qualified candidates, the collegium risks undermining the court's credibility and its ability to serve as a guardian of justice for all. The appointment process must be re-evaluated to ensure greater transparency and consideration for seniority and diversity, promoting a more balanced and representative judiciary.
The central issue revolves around the fact that several women judges, notably Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal of the Gujarat High Court, Justice Revati Prashant Mohite Dere of the Bombay High Court, and Justice Lisa Gill of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, all hold higher positions in the all-India seniority list than Justice Pancholi. Justice Agarwal was appointed in 2011, Justice Mohite Dere in 2013, and Justice Gill in early 2014, whereas Justice Pancholi was appointed in late 2014. This discrepancy has fueled allegations that the collegium overlooked more senior and potentially more qualified female candidates in favor of Justice Pancholi, raising questions about the underlying criteria and motivations behind the decision. Justice Nagarathna's dissent within the collegium highlights the internal conflict and the potential for bias in the selection process. Her argument that elevating Justice Pancholi could erode the credibility of the collegium system underscores the importance of maintaining transparency and adhering to established norms of seniority and merit. Furthermore, Justice Nagarathna reportedly pointed to Justice Pancholi's transfer from the Gujarat High Court to the Patna High Court in July 2023 as a carefully considered move, implying that his subsequent elevation might not be entirely based on merit but rather influenced by other factors. This claim adds another layer of complexity to the controversy and raises further questions about the fairness and impartiality of the collegium's decision. The concerns expressed by CJAR further amplify the criticism of the collegium's decision. The organization emphasized that Justice Pancholi ranks 57th in the all-India seniority list of High Court judges and questioned the rationale behind his elevation, particularly given that he is the third judge from Gujarat to be elevated to the Supreme Court, which CJAR argues is disproportionate to the size of the Gujarat High Court and leaves other High Courts unrepresented. This argument highlights the importance of regional representation and the need to ensure that the Supreme Court reflects the diversity of the country as a whole. The controversy surrounding Justice Pancholi's elevation also underscores the broader issue of judicial appointments and the need for reform in the collegium system. Critics argue that the collegium system, which is composed of the Chief Justice of India and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, lacks transparency and accountability, and that its decisions are often influenced by personal biases and political considerations. They advocate for a more transparent and merit-based selection process that involves a wider range of stakeholders, including the government, the bar, and civil society, to ensure that the most qualified and deserving candidates are appointed to the Supreme Court. The current controversy serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges in achieving a truly independent and representative judiciary and the need for continuous reform to ensure that the Supreme Court remains a credible and effective guardian of the Constitution.
The impact of under-representation of women within the judiciary extends beyond mere numbers. A diverse bench, including a significant number of women judges, is essential for ensuring that the perspectives and experiences of all segments of society are adequately considered in the adjudication of legal disputes. Studies have shown that women judges often bring different perspectives to cases, particularly those involving issues of gender equality, family law, and violence against women. Their presence on the bench can lead to more nuanced and equitable outcomes, and can help to build public trust in the judiciary. The absence of women judges, on the other hand, can perpetuate biases and stereotypes, and can lead to decisions that fail to adequately address the needs and concerns of women. Furthermore, the under-representation of women in the judiciary can discourage other women from pursuing careers in law and can undermine the overall diversity of the legal profession. It is therefore crucial that the collegium take active steps to promote gender equality and ensure that women are given equal opportunities to serve on the Supreme Court and other high courts. This requires not only a commitment to selecting qualified women candidates but also a willingness to address the systemic barriers that prevent women from reaching the highest levels of the judiciary. These barriers include implicit biases, lack of mentorship opportunities, and the challenges of balancing work and family responsibilities. Addressing these barriers requires a multi-faceted approach that involves not only changes in the appointment process but also efforts to promote a more inclusive and supportive culture within the legal profession. The controversy surrounding Justice Pancholi's elevation also raises broader questions about the relationship between the judiciary and the other branches of government. In recent years, there has been increasing tension between the judiciary and the executive, particularly over issues of judicial appointments and the interpretation of constitutional provisions. The government has often expressed its dissatisfaction with the collegium system and has sought to play a greater role in the selection of judges. The judiciary, on the other hand, has resisted these efforts, arguing that they would undermine the independence of the judiciary and subject it to political influence. The ongoing debate over judicial appointments is therefore not merely a technical matter but a fundamental question of the separation of powers and the role of the judiciary in a democratic society. Finding a balance between the need for judicial independence and the need for accountability and transparency is a crucial challenge for India's democracy. The current controversy provides an opportunity to reflect on these issues and to develop a more robust and sustainable framework for judicial appointments that is both fair and effective. Ultimately, the credibility and effectiveness of the Supreme Court depend on its ability to uphold the rule of law, protect the fundamental rights of citizens, and maintain the public's trust. Addressing the concerns raised about the under-representation of women and the fairness of the collegium system is essential for achieving these goals and ensuring that the Supreme Court continues to serve as a beacon of justice for all.
Source: Did Supreme Court collegium ignore senior women judges and elevate Justice Pancholi? Questions arise