NEW DELHI: As the Centre and the judiciary engage in confrontations over judicial appointments, the Ministry of Law and Justice is mulling establishing a pan-India Judicial Performance Evaluation System for judges of the Supreme Court and high courts. The ministry is studying an interim report submitted last month by Vidhi, Centre for Legal Policy. It recommends evaluation of judges by an independent entity, whose composition is yet to be decided. Peer reviews whereby judges can evaluate and provide feedback on colleagues, reactions from court staff, responses from practicing lawyers who have appeared before particular judges and self-assessments are part of the suggested process.
The report was prepared in pursuance of a project on the Development and Enforcement of Performance Standards on how to enhance accountability of the higher judiciary, for which India lacks a performance rating system. Retired Delhi High Court Justice S N Dhingra told The Sunday Standard, “Bringing in the new evaluation system is a welcome step and necessary at a time when the judiciary is reeling under the tremendous pressure of pending cases. It will also fix accountability of judges who often hear complete cases, but are either transferred or promoted before they can deliver verdicts, thereby leaving litigants in a limbo.” The report suggests that need for training programmes for judges, decisions on transfers and promotions, assessment of work load to be allocated and the continuance of the tenure of a judge should be determined by the recommended evaluation system. The move comes in the wake of an eight-month showdown between the Centre’s plan to bring the present Collegium system to an end. Backroom parleys are on between the government and the collegium on a new memorandum of procedure for appointing judges to higher courts.
In August, Chief Justice TS Thakur accused the government of stalling appointments of high court judges. In September, sitting Supreme Court judge, Justice J Chelameswar declined to participate in collegium meetings. This week, National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, an advocates’ organisation, will move the apex court seeking recusal of Justice Thakur from hearing petitions over speedily filling the 40 per cent plus vacancies in high courts.
As the face off between the higher judiciary and the government continues on judicial appointments, the law ministry is studying a report recommending a new evaluation method for judges of the Supreme Court and high courts. The report is meant to make the system more transparent and accountable to the public and will help judges understand means to improve judicial performance. It will also enable the court system to decide on transfers, promotions and other human resource issues.
However, a section of the legal fraternity is opposed to such a procedure. Senior Supreme Court Advocate Aryama Sundaram said, “Evaluating judges is a terrible step for the future of the judiciary. It will curtail the independence of the justice delivery system. The working of trial court judges is completely different from the judges of High Court and Supreme Court. Higher judicial posts are constitutional posts and under such circumstances, putting them under scrutiny will be a disaster.” The parameters of evaluation will include the number of judgments overturned or gone for appeal in a higher court, punctuality, areas where a judge has worked on and passed judgments, perspective of litigants, state of preparation, attentiveness and administrative abilities to name a few.
“The criteria will also include how many times the judges’ decisions are used as precedent in other cases, number of adjournments granted by the judge, disposal rate of the judge, cases clearance rates and productivity will also be included,” the report states.
For the lower judiciary, Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) are used to evaluate judges’ performance.
