Supreme Court judges have asked the Chief Justice of India to hold a ‘Full Court’ once in a while and also initiate frequent informal discussions where ideas can be shared freely among them.
At a recent meeting, the judges proposed to Chief Justice Dipak Misra that only a frank and free exchange of ideas among themselves would improve “institutional strength.” When Chief Justice Misra asked the judges if they had any particular issues in mind, they said there was no need to prepare an agenda for meeting one another. Rather, they should meet often to “exchange ideas, discuss, to strengthen the institution.”
This may signal a thaw in the strained relationship within the highest judiciary with judges rallying together after the failed removal motion against Chief Justice Misra.
Case allocation concerns
Trouble had started with the four senior most judges of the Supreme Court — Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph — holding a press conference to complain about the selective allocation of nationally important cases to certain Benches. The judges had said that Chief Justice Misra did not act despite repeated entreaties from them, thus forcing them to bring the issue into the public domain.
Further, it has been over two years since the Supreme Court asked the government to finalise the Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of judges. The government’s reluctance to clear the Collegium recommendations of Uttarakhand Chief Justice K.M. Joseph and senior advocate Indu Malhotra challenged the Supreme Court’s authority.
However, the government cleared Ms. Malhotra's appointment on Wednesday.
Earlier this month, Justice Kurian sounded the clarion call by writing to the Chief Justice, saying it was time for the Supreme Court to confront the government’s refusal to act on the recommendation to appoint Ms. Malhotra, the first woman lawyer to be directly recommended for judgeship from the Bar, and Chief Justice Joseph.
Justice Kurian said the issue had to be dealt with on the judicial side as the “very life and existence of the institution” was under threat.
