corporate law

Media Trials and Judicial Pressure: Reforming High Court Bench Allocation

Media Trials and Judicial Pressure: Insights from the Judiciary

Recent discussions involving judges from the Supreme Court highlight the critical impact that media trials and public comments have on the justice system. Hon’ble Mr. Justice AS Oka emphasized how biased media portrayals are diminishing public faith in democracy and adversely affecting the delivery of justice. He remarked that ongoing injustices endure as media discussions often resemble kangaroo courts, focusing on issues that even seasoned judges find challenging.

Concerns Raised by Hon’ble Former CJI Mr. NV Ramana

At a lecture in Ranchi, Hon’ble Former CJI Mr. NV Ramana expressed that without robust judicial review, public confidence in the Constitution would significantly decline. He asserted that the judiciary is crucial for realizing the Constitution's vision for the people and that the responsibility of delivering justice is increasingly difficult in a climate of media scrutiny.

The Need for Structural Reforms in High Court Bench Allocation

Significantly, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay addressed the issue of High Court bench distribution during a webinar on judicial responsibility. He pointed out the pressing need to reassess how High Court benches are allocated across states based on population, case pendency, and size. Currently, Uttar Pradesh, the most populated state with the highest number of pending cases, has only one High Court bench located in Lucknow, which is impractical for many litigants. This scenario forces those from Western UP to travel excessive distances to access justice, exacerbating inequality and access issues.

  • Recommendations Ignored: The Justice Jaswant Singh Commission, which was instituted by the Centre, recommended establishing a permanent High Court bench in Agra for Western UP nearly 50 years ago. However, no action has been taken.
  • Disparity in Allocations: States such as Maharashtra, which have fewer pending cases, have received additional benches despite their existing capacity.

Questions on Governmental Discrimination and Judicial Responsibility

A pressing question arises: is the Centre waiting for Western UP to seek statehood similar to Uttarakhand? The apparent neglect towards a populous region grappling with significant judicial needs is alarming. There have been multiple calls for additional benches, including from notable political figures, yet concrete steps remain absent. For instance, former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in 1986, advocated for a High Court bench in Western UP within Parliament. The lack of action following such high-profile requests illustrates a systemic disregard for judicial equity.

  • Historical Oversights: The allocation of judicial resources has seemingly favored Eastern UP for decades. Despite recommendations and the well-documented need, no measures have remedied this uneven distribution.

The Role of Media and Political Leaders

The judiciary must remain insulated from external influences, particularly from media and political statements regarding ongoing cases. Justice Oka highlighted how media pressure can lead judges to decide cases based on public sentiment rather than legal principles. Statements made by political figures, such as those from Chief Ministers, regarding pending investigations raise concerns about judicial impartiality.

Call for Action

Enacting substantial change is imperative. The demands for a High Court bench in Western UP are justified, and denying this need perpetuates injustice.

  • Judicial Leadership: Judges must not refrain from issuing decisive rulings that acknowledge historical injustices regarding bench allocations.
  • Political Responsibility: Political leaders must cease public commentary on ongoing legal matters to prevent undue pressure on judicial processes.

Conclusion

The current situation illustrates a critical need for reforms in the allocation of High Court benches and the public's understanding of judicial independence. Only through addressing these concerns can the integrity of the judicial system be preserved, thereby ensuring equitable access to justice for all citizens. The ongoing dialogue among judicial leaders signifies the urgency of these issues, and sustained efforts are essential to uphold the values enshrined in the Constitution.