‘The Chief Justice can’t write to any bench asking it to modify an order’

In an interview with Utkarsh Anand and Ayesha Arvind, justice Abhay S Oka, who retired from the Supreme Court earlier this year, spoke with candour on some of the pressing issues before the judiciary.

- 

From the “Chief Justice-centric” image of the apex court, judicial independence, to delays that discourage prospective judges, his views on bail, personal liberty and the polyvocality of benches, as well as his strong stand against post-retirement positions, justice Oka reflected on the challenges before the institution.

You said at your farewell the Supreme Court is “Chief Justice-centric” and this image must change. How do you see the balance of power between the CJI as master of the roster and the need for more democratic functioning?

There are two parts. First, the roster. In high courts, every bench is assigned specific cases. So, a litigant knows which bench the matter will go to. In Bombay and Karnataka high courts, the roster is set for two months or ten weeks, signed by the chief justice and published. There are also “drop benches” so if one recuses, it goes to another. Once notified, the registry and even the chief justice have no discretion, except for transfer applications. In the Supreme Court, there is no such fixed roster. Subjects are assigned to multiple benches -- say, bail to three or four benches So, when a fresh petition is filed, the registry has discretion. In practice, the registry goes with 50-60 cases before the Chief Justice in the evening, and then cases are assigned. The Chief Justice is too busy to apply his mind to all. Therefore, there isa lot of discretion with the registry and also the Chief Justice. In my opinion, a fixed roster like in high courts will help. The important thing is minimal manual intervention.