Wednesday 30 December 2015
Tuesday 22 December 2015
Judicial Independence and the Appointment of Judges - A transcript of DAKSH's Fourth Annual Constitution Day Lecture
The Fourth Annual
Constitution Day Lecture hosted by DAKSH at the Indian Institute for Human
Settlements (IIHS) Auditorium on Saturday, 28 November, 2015, was a gathering
of members from the legal community, students, and citizens interested in governance.
The lecture was delivered
by Mr Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India. Mr
Ramachandran is an eminent lawyer and a former Additional Solicitor General of
India. Mr Ramachandran spoke on the topic of ‘Judicial Independence and the
Appointment of Judges’, in light of the recent NJAC judgement. The transcript of Mr. Ramachandran's lecture is as follows.
Thank
you DAKSH, thank you Harish, and thank you all for coming.
In
1951, one year after we the people gave ourselves this Constitution, Jawaharlal
Nehru said, ‘This magnificent Constitution that we have framed has been
kidnapped and purloined by lawyers.’ When he says lawyers, he meant lawyers and
judges. He meant the robed fraternity. Many kidnappings and purloins [sic] have happened since then. But, the
most egregious kidnapping in recent times happened on 16th of
October this year when the Supreme Court struck down the Constitution’s 99th
amendment and the NJAC Act, which tried to bring in a new constitutional regime
governing the appointment of judges.
Now,
let us start with some basics. We the people have given ourselves this Constitution
which embodies the rule of law. If judges have been given the power by our Constitution
to strike down the laws of Parliament which violate fundamental rights (later
of course, came the basic structure theory), in essence, the Constitution has
given the judges a political role. The role of a higher judiciary, therefore,
let us all be clear, is a political role and therefore, if we the people have
given such vast powers to the judges, do we the people have the right to
participate in the process of
appointment of judges, or should judges self-select? Should it be—Arun Jaitley used a really attractive
expression, a gymkhana club—where
members decide who the new members are going to be? Now this question, therefore,
needs to be viewed not as an executive and legislature on one side and
judiciary on the other, but, as something which concerns the whole culture of constitutionalism
in our country.
Now,
let’s get one more judiciary-evolved concept clear—the basic structure theory. Till the Golaknath[1]
case in 1967, it was accepted that the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution
was untrammelled. It was 17 years [after the Constitution came into force], in
the Golaknath[2]
case, that the Supreme Court by a majority said that no, Parliament’s power
to [amend] the Constitution cannot touch the fundamental rights, and then,
later again by a definite majority, the largest-ever bench of the Supreme Court
held that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution does not extend to
abrogate the basic structure of the Constitution.
Now,
full disclosure, I am a known critic of the basic structure doctrine on
conceptual grounds. But that is irrelevant for the purpose of today’s talk and
discussion. We [will] proceed on the basis, as we have to, that the basic structure
theory is the law of the land. Now, the basic structure is not defined in the Constitution
itself, it is spelt out by judges on a case-by-case basis and interestingly, [in]
the Kesavananda Bharati[3]
case, which first propounded this theory, though different judges set out
illustrative examples of what might constitute the basic structure, not one
judge says independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic structure.
Justice Khanna says possibly judicial review, but independence of the judiciary
was not set out in illustrations given by the judges themselves as part of the basic
structure. But, that doesn’t matter. If there is a basic structure theory, I
don’t think there can be any quarrel with the proposition that independence of
the judiciary is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. As is
democracy, as is separation of powers, as is a system of checks and balances.
But, the problem arises when, while analysing the basic structure, you forget
the architecture, you forget the design, and you come down to individual
bricks.
Let
me just develop this a little: when you talk of a structure, four professions
are involved—architecture, civil and structural engineering, masonry and brick
laying. Now, when you strike down an amendment to the Constitution, are you
going to look at how the architecture is damaged? How the structure is damaged?
Or are you going to look at the colour of the individual bricks and the quality
of individual bricks and say that if one brick is replaced by another, the basic
structure is violated. And that is the central problem with this judgment,
which we will come to as we get into more details. Now, normally when we talk
of basic structure we think of the original Constitution. Though, conceivably
you can say that when significant additions are made, then in due course those
additions may become basic. That’s something debatable and it can happen. But,
when we are talking of the basic structure theory, [in] the context of our
relatively young Constitution, we are talking of the original Constitution.
Now,
what was basic in the matter of judicial appointments as [far as] the original Constitution
was concerned? It was this particular feature that the President, which means
the executive, did not have the untrammelled right to appoint judges to the
superior judiciary, unlike [the] case with many constitutions around the world,
where the executive has the absolute right to appoint judges, and such constitutions
are constitutions of countries which boast of judiciaries no less independent
than ours. But, the choice was made that the President, that is, the executive,
will not have this untrammelled right and that he would do it in consultation
with the Chief Justice of India and such other judges of the Supreme Court whom
he might find fit to consult. Now, in the First
Judges case, 1981[4], the Supreme Court
accepted the position that what Article 124 of the Constitution envisaged was
consultation. Consultation of course means due regard, deference, but,
consultation did not mean concurrence. But, the Second Judges case, 1993[5], reversed this position,
and, in my view, rewrote the Constitution, to hold that in effect, this [concurrence]
is what it meant, and the Court advanced an interesting theory for this. The Court
viewed it from the point of view of competence to select. Who, which, is the
best institution to select judges? It is the judiciary, because lawyers are
made judges. Courts are the arena of their performance and therefore, judges
are best equipped to assess the suitability of candidates for judgeship and so
there is really no question of primacy as such. If you look at it from the
point of view of who is best equipped, it is the judiciary, and therefore, the
question gets resolved that it is ultimately the judiciary. Now that judgment,
as I said, was an egregious rewriting of the Constitution. But the political
class did not stand up at that time, did not assert itself at that time. The
surrender of the political class to judicial supremacy was evident from 1973,
after the Kesavananda Bharati case[6], because when the first
inroad was made in the Golaknath
case, there was at least one strong champion of parliamentary rights, socialist
MP, [Nath] Pai, who made it his life’s mission to get the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Golaknath[7]
overruled by the constitutional process, but that was not to be. That surrender,
which started post Kesavananda Bharati[8],
and that was because the emergency came soon after that and so the political
class also felt that no, the only thing that stood between dictatorship and the
people was the Supreme Court and the basic structure theory and therefore, in
1993 [it was still evident], [and] there was no political consensus. Then came
1998. In 1993, while rewriting the Constitution, the Supreme Court created a constitutional
institution called the collegium and defined its composition. In 1998, the
Supreme Court, in its own interest, because the collegium, as originally
envisaged, was not working the way it wanted to, because of problems with
particular appointments and particular judges in the collegium, itself
re-defined the collegium to make it larger—five instead of three. The
experience of the collegium system over the years ultimately led to this rare unanimity
in the political class, which led to this major amendment being passed.
Let’s
briefly recapitulate what the features were:
The
National Judicial Appointments Commission would have the Chief Justice of India
and two senior most judges as ex-officio members. The executive was represented
by a lone member—the law minister. A very refreshing innovation—civil society—was
brought in by prescribing that there would be two eminent members, one of whom
would be from among either SCs/STs/OBCs/minorities or women. A refreshing
innovation in the interest of diversity. It also provided that the working and the
procedure would be prescribed by the Act and the renovations under the Act. The
Act provided that if any two members in the six-member body had reservations
about a recommendation, that recommendation would not go through, which was
considered a veto, but it was really
a special majority, that you needed a majority of 4 out of 6. But, please
remember that this provision in any case was in the Act and not the constitutional
amendment. But the constitutional amendment has still been struck down on the
ground of there being a veto, though in the Act, but the act and the amendment
are part of a package deal and therefore, both must go. Now, what is the basis
of the judgment of the majority? There are four judgments and therefore, it’s
confusing but let’s, [we have tried to] cull it out as lawyers. Independence of
judiciary is part of the basic structure, the process of appointment of judges
is a necessary part of the independence of judiciary, and primacy of the
judiciary is a necessary part of the process of appointment which is integral
to the independence of the judiciary. This primacy is taken away by the constitutional
amendment and therefore, the basic structure is violated, [and] the amendment
is bad, the Act is bad, period.
Now
let’s come back to the four professions which I referred to. Primacy is not
part of the architecture, it’s not a part of the structure. It is supposedly a
part of a wall and the primacy is gone because the judges are three out of six,
they do not have the majority to overrule the decision, the view of civil
society and the executive and therefore, primacy is violated. Now, therefore,
we are coming to bricks and we don’t confine ourselves to the structure,
contrary to the Supreme Court’s own view in dealing [with] challenges to other constitutional
amendments. So there are double standards here, because there will be very few
instances, four or five, where the Court has struck down constitutional
amendments, where the Court has said [that] it has to be some overarching
principle which is violated before we can strike down the constitutional
amendment on the ground of violation of basic structure. But, when it came to
the Court’s own perception of judicial independence, it said goodbye to that
test. Now let us assume for the sake of our argument that yes, primacy is part
of the basic structure. But what does primacy mean? When the amendment gave an
institutional majority to the judiciary, that is three, and deliberately opted
for giving institutional minority to the executive—one and institutional
minority to civil society—two, weren’t the requirements of primacy met? If you
have an institutional majority wasn’t the requirement of primacy met? Apparently
not, in the view of the Supreme Court, because primacy must mean their
overwhelming majority, their veto. This, I submit, is a deeply flawed view and
a self-serving view.
Now,
let me come to the next point. Why is it that outside participation is
necessary in the process of judicial appointments to a judiciary which enjoys
such vast political power? The first [reason] is based on the doctrine of
checks and balances itself, which is also part of the basic structure. If the
judiciary can strike down laws of Parliament passed by elected representatives
of the people, surely there ought to be an evidence of democratic participation
in appointment of those judges in whom such vast power is vested. Vested by
whom? By the people who have created this Constitution, who have created these
courts. So the checks and balances theory requires that there must be an
element of democratic participation in the process of judicial appointments.
Secondly,
independence of judiciary is very narrowly viewed by this judgment and by our
robed fraternity generally, as independence from executive interference. Now,
independence from executive interference is only one aspect of independence of
the judiciary. Independence of the judiciary also means judges must be
independent of corporate houses, of business lobbies, of lawyers, of law firms
and most important, judges need to be independent of themselves. Independence
from themselves means independence from their own prejudices and proclivities,
independence from caste and religious considerations because after all, judges
are all from the same society, independence from the career interests of their
own kith and kin. Who is to interrogate judges on these aspects unless there is
outside participation? Then comes the question of the social philosophy of
judges, which is something essential in a constitutional court. Now, I think a
large number in this audience would’ve been shocked at the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the 377 case[9]. Now why did that happen?
Because there was no one to interrogate prospective Supreme Court judges on
their social philosophies. So let’s not get scared by this word ‘social
philosophy’. I am saying this particularly because those of us who grew up, who
came of age, in the 70s were taught that social philosophy is a bad word
because, when Mrs Gandhi wanted to supersede judges who did not see eye to eye with
her in her socialistic reforms, one of Mrs Gandhi’s ministers, the late Mohan
Kumaramangalam, who was not the law minister, but [he was] the one who articulated
this with great candour and honesty that the social philosophy of judges is
important. And we thought that was something dirty because social philosophy
meant that courts were going to be packed with judges who are convenient to the
executive. But, social philosophy as we see now means much more and therefore,
judges need to be interrogated on their social philosophies and this can only
be done with outside participation. The last important reason for outside
participation is that judges, when they self-select, are only giving each other
chance, ‘who may get’ and that’s why you have this completely ridiculous
spectacle over the years of Chief Justices of India who have held office for 17
days, 30 days, 3 months. Chief Justices
who have been sworn in in High Courts for even 1 day and 2 days so that they
could reach that particular scale for the purpose of their pension. On the one
hand, you would say that the CBI director must have two years, the home secretary
must have two years, foreign secretary must have two years, but, the Chief
Justice of India, and Chief Justices of High Court don’t have to have a minimum
period. The point I’m driving at is that the concept of manpower planning in
interest of effective functioning of an institution is completely alien to the
minds of judges when they sit and self-select.
There
is another interesting concept which I read about in the context of rise in
hierarchies in the field of business management. The concept of homo-social
cloning or homo-social reproduction and this has been studied in the context of
gender discrimination, women not rising in an organisation, or blacks,
Hispanics, etc. When a homogenous body self-selects, it subconsciously selects
people in the same mould, people like us, ‘PLU’. Why does a judge like a
particular young lawyer who is appearing before him? Because he sees himself as
a young lawyer, he sees his own young days. It is that kind of a lawyer who
makes an impression on him. This is a fact of human nature and therefore, as a
check on homo-social cloning also, the importance of the outsider cannot be
forgotten.
Now
[to] this judgment, and I will just give a brief analysis for [the] benefit of
lawyers and law students present in the audience, and then come to my
concluding point.
This
is for lawyers now—for the future of the basic structure theory, this judgment
opens up frightening possibilities. One is this concept of derived basic structure,
the brick work of the basic structure. Secondly, the comparison between
different pillars of the basic structure and the judicial fiat that it is all that
it is not an express fiat but, if you have to choose between different pillars
of the basic structure, then the independence of the judiciary is the most
important. And, the third is that, in matters involving the judiciary itself,
there is going to be a significant lowering of the threshold as far as applying
the basic structure theory is concerned. Now you can forget all about
overarching principles. Anything which the judges feel affects the judiciary
can be brought in within the basic structure concept. So that is for the
lawyers and the legal academics here to ponder over.
Now,
to civil society, I would want to highlight the fact that this judgment shows a
certain—not just condescension—but a certain contempt for civil society. One
judgment says, and I read and re-read the line to see if there was some typo in
that line, whether something was missed, but no, it is there, that at the
present juncture civil society is ‘not evolved enough’ in our country to make
any kind of meaningful contribution. Another judge says in his judgment that it
is quite possible that both the civil society and the law minister can be
influenced by extraneous considerations. So, [there is] a deep distrust of the
political class, which is bad for the Constitution. The political class
ultimately is a class which is answerable to the people, which is elected and
which gets thrown out, unlike we learned people, who once appointed to the
Bench can’t be removed except by special majority of Parliament. There, if the Constitution
is amended to say no, instead of special majority, make it simple majority, the
Court will strike it down. But, here, in the context of judicial appointments
that special majority is said to be bad. Now, civil society in my view can be
the ultimate saviour in situations where judges and lawyers and the law
minister gang up—[although,] why is this judgment only thinking of others
ganging up against judges? Why is it presumed that the three judges will think
alike, which is not necessarily so, which is not the experience of the
collegium also. On the other hand, the law minister is often a very eminent
lawyer. It is important to remember this because, during arguments in this case,
people only thought of one particular diabolical politician who was the law
minister, but, there are renowned lawyers who are also law ministers and who
are part of the same cosy club as the judges. That [an] eminent senior advocate
who is law minister today will soon demit office [during] the change in
government and he will be addressing these judges in court. So, the law
minister also has some self-interest. This judgment doesn’t contemplate such a
situation at all and perhaps doesn’t want to contemplate such a situation where
three judges and one eminent lawyer gang up together to promote a person like
them and civil society can’t veto this. Now, there was some political unanimity
at that time, after all this bill took concrete shape during the tenure of the
previous government and I, myself remember being invited to some consultations.
It was only carried forward by the next government, maybe with a change here or
there. It was passed with unanimity, but today the political situation has
changed, I see little hope now for Parliament to reassert itself in the
foreseeable future. I think we are back to where we were and I think this
unhappy situation is going to be with us at least for another 10 years, if not
20 years. But, the debate must go on. The Constitution is not the property of
lawyers and judges. A dynamic Constitution works only interactively with the
executive, the legislature, in a state of creative tension of course, but the
Constitution belongs to all of us and if it does, this judgment ought not to
stand.
Thank
you.
You can read more about the event and see pictures on our Facebook page.
Monday 21 December 2015
Other Access to Justice Surveys - Part 1
Guest post by Krithika Gururaj
Similar
to DAKSH’s ongoing Access to Justice survey, there have
been surveys conducted in various countries focusing on different aspects of the
judicial system and in particular the public’s perception of the judiciary.
Reference:
Pleasence, P., Balmer, N., and Sandefur, R. 2013, Paths to Justice: A Past,
Present and Future
The
UK’s Paths to Justice Survey was conducted in the year 1997 by Prof
Dame Hazel Genn. It was commissioned by the Nuffield Foundation with the
intention of gathering information about the public’s experience and perception
of legal problems – ‘the client perspective’ and possible resolutions. The
survey was conducted on a sample group from England and Wales, with the
research subsequently extending to Scotland when the Paths to Justice Scotland survey was commissioned. The landmark Paths to Justice Survey has resulted in several other countries
adopting a similar survey approach to assess their judiciary.
The
survey brought to light structural factors impeding access to justice, such as
costs, procedures, and lack of knowledge. The survey provided unique data on
the public’s experience of the justice system, transformed understanding of the
system, and shaped subsequent government policies based on the legal needs of
citizens. Further research stemming from the survey has assessed effects of the
aforementioned factors on the formal institution of the justice system. The Paths to Justice Survey is currently funded by the UK’s
Ministry of Justice as a continuous panel study.
Of
vital importance is the incorporation of survey findings in the policy
processes of the UK government in the design and delivery of legal services.
The survey has also influenced expenditure on legal aid through the Legal
Services Commission in the UK and has been incorporated into various English
and Welsh government publications. The survey report was initially used to
drive and support policy change. The Constitutional Select Committee’s reports
in 2004 and 2005 on legal aid matters used the survey findings extensively, as
evidence to support or defend the government’s position. However, by 2011, the
findings were increasingly being used by non-state actors to criticise
government policy.
The
survey has transformed understanding of public justice needs and influenced the
way legal services are delivered in the UK. We look forward to DAKSH’s Access
to Justice Survey having a similar profound influence on the Indian justice
system.
Reference: Pleasence, P., Balmer, N.,
and Sandefur, R. 2013, Paths
to Justice: A Past, Present and Future
Krithika Gururaj is currently an intern at
DAKSH India and a candidate for Master's in Public Policy from the Crawford
School of Public Policy at the Australian National University in Canberra.
Similar
to DAKSH’s ongoing Access to Justice survey, there have
been surveys conducted in various countries focusing on different aspects of the
judicial system and in particular the public’s perception of the judiciary.
Reference:
Pleasence, P., Balmer, N., and Sandefur, R. 2013, Paths to Justice: A Past,
Present and Future
The
UK’s Paths to Justice Survey was conducted in the year 1997 by Prof
Dame Hazel Genn. It was commissioned by the Nuffield Foundation with the
intention of gathering information about the public’s experience and perception
of legal problems – ‘the client perspective’ and possible resolutions. The
survey was conducted on a sample group from England and Wales, with the
research subsequently extending to Scotland when the Paths to Justice Scotland survey was commissioned. The landmark Paths to Justice Survey has resulted in several other countries
adopting a similar survey approach to assess their judiciary.
The
survey brought to light structural factors impeding access to justice, such as
costs, procedures, and lack of knowledge. The survey provided unique data on
the public’s experience of the justice system, transformed understanding of the
system, and shaped subsequent government policies based on the legal needs of
citizens. Further research stemming from the survey has assessed effects of the
aforementioned factors on the formal institution of the justice system. The Paths to Justice Survey is currently funded by the UK’s
Ministry of Justice as a continuous panel study.
Of
vital importance is the incorporation of survey findings in the policy
processes of the UK government in the design and delivery of legal services.
The survey has also influenced expenditure on legal aid through the Legal
Services Commission in the UK and has been incorporated into various English
and Welsh government publications. The survey report was initially used to
drive and support policy change. The Constitutional Select Committee’s reports
in 2004 and 2005 on legal aid matters used the survey findings extensively, as
evidence to support or defend the government’s position. However, by 2011, the
findings were increasingly being used by non-state actors to criticise
government policy.
The
survey has transformed understanding of public justice needs and influenced the
way legal services are delivered in the UK. We look forward to DAKSH’s Access
to Justice Survey having a similar profound influence on the Indian justice
system.
Reference: Pleasence, P., Balmer, N.,
and Sandefur, R. 2013, Paths
to Justice: A Past, Present and Future
Krithika Gururaj is currently an intern at
DAKSH India and a candidate for Master's in Public Policy from the Crawford
School of Public Policy at the Australian National University in Canberra.
Tuesday 15 December 2015
Are more fresh filings causing judicial pendency?
Are more fresh filings causing judicial pendency?
By Surya Prakash B S
Have the number of cases filed in courts gone up so substantially as to be the main reason for the backlog of cases in courts? In the opinion of Justice Gopala Gowda, that is indeed so.
By Surya Prakash B S
Have the number of cases filed in courts gone up so substantially as to be the main reason for the backlog of cases in courts? In the opinion of Justice Gopala Gowda, that is indeed so.
Speaking at the Lok Adalat organised by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority on 12 December, Justice Gowda remarked, ‘The judiciary is
not responsible for cases not being resolved in a timely manner. The government is not establishing courts in
proportion to the increase in population and cases filed. Disposal of cases is
being delayed due to this. The courts and judges are doing an excellent job in
the disposal of cases. If there were an increase in courts appropriate to the
increase in filings then there would be no question of judicial delays at all.”
(as reported in the Kannada daily, Prajavani, on 13 December 2015).
So we asked ourselves: Is there really an increase in
filings? And if yes, at what rate is it increasing?
Here are three time trends from the last updated data reported in ‘Court
News’ reported by the Supreme Court ( can accessed here http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/courtnews.htm).
In the Supreme Court
Figure 1: Trend of fresh filings and disposal in the Supreme
Court over 10 quarters
Table 1: No. of fresh filings and disposal at the Supreme
Court during the quarter:
Q112
|
Q212
|
Q312
|
Q412
|
Q113
|
Q213
|
Q313
|
Q413
|
Q114
|
Q214
|
|
Fresh
filings
|
21,706
|
15,187
|
22,403
|
17,621
|
21,342
|
15,551
|
22,813
|
17,036
|
22,287
|
22,459
|
Disposal
|
20,409
|
11,152
|
21,604
|
15,579
|
20,714
|
13,425
|
25,656
|
17,290
|
24,306
|
20,819
|
In the High Courts
Figure 2: Trend of fresh filings and disposal in the High
Courts over 10 quarters
Table 2: No. of fresh filings and disposal at the High
Courts during the quarter:
Q4 11
|
Q1 12
|
Q2 12
|
Q3 12
|
Q4 12
|
Q1 13
|
Q2 13
|
Q3 13
|
Q4 13
|
Q1 14
|
|
Fresh Filings
|
4,58,885
|
4,79,042
|
4,40,324
|
5,31,292
|
4,63,103
|
4,95,746
|
4,88,186
|
5,60,889
|
4,53,438
|
5,08,727
|
Disposals
|
4,07,265
|
4,64,312
|
3,82,189
|
5,10,841
|
4,34,049
|
4,37,176
|
3,94,487
|
4,98,202
|
4,22,947
|
4,86,115
|
In the sub-ordinate
courts
Figure 3: Trend of fresh filings and disposal in the
Subordinate Courts over 10 quarters
Table 3: No. of fresh filings and disposal at the
Subordinate Courts during the quarter:
Q4 11
|
Q1 12
|
Q2 12
|
Q3 12
|
Q4 12
|
Q1 13
|
Q2 13
|
Q3 13
|
Q4 13
|
Q1 14
|
|
Fresh filings
|
41,46,123
|
43,37,836
|
44,66,303
|
48,82,975
|
44,33,166
|
43,50,524
|
44,52,506
|
47,36,967
|
51,28,312
|
48,66,618
|
Disposed Cases
|
44,00,718
|
44,82,366
|
43,18,734
|
50,44,185
|
43,11,269
|
43,88,859
|
40,75,708
|
44,19,310
|
58,55,480
|
43,44,835
|
As can be seen from the charts, there has been some increase
in the fresh cases being filed at all levels.
In the Supreme Court there has been a 3% increase of filings in Q2 ’14 as compared with filings in Q1
’12. In the High Courts there have been a 10%
increase of filings in Q1 ’14 as compared with filings in Q4 ’11. And in the Subordinate Courts there have been
a 17% increase of filings in Q1 ’14
as compared with filings in Q4 ’11.
Clearly the level of increase is not drastic. In fact, the
disposal level too seems to follow the trend of fresh filings. Therefore the rate
of increase in the fresh filings does not appear to be the chief cause of
judicial pendency. Or rather it can not
be said to be the only cause.
Practitioners and scholars alike have pointed out may
factors like management of court diary, too many adjournments, lack of judges,
etc., that contribute to the pendency
problem. Understanding the chief causes for the steady worsening of the judicial
pendency situation needs a closer scrutiny of the day to day operations of the
judiciary.
(With inputs from
Krithika Gururaj, student of Master in Public Policy programme at the Crawford
School of Public Policy)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)