Chief Justice of India-designate Uday Umesh Lalit believes the ratio of women judges has risen considerably in the 75 years of Independence as more women find a judicial career acceptable.
Justice Lalit, speaking to The Hindu on Sunday, said “the picture may change in the next 10 or 15 years. Today, we are completing 75 years of Independence, maybe when we complete 100 years, the ratio of women in judiciary would be completely different”.
Reacting to whether the retirement age of judges should be increased from 65 to 67, Justice Lalit said “We came here to the Bench because our predecessors retired at 65. So, it is inter-generational equity… This is for the lawmakers to decide”.
The CJI-designate said “virtual courts have opened new frontiers and smudged geographical boundaries”.
Justice Lalit said the collegium presided by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, of which he is a part of, made 255 recommendations to High Courts in 11 months.
Excerpts from the interview:
‘Women find judicial career acceptable’
Do you feel the retirement age of Supreme Court judges should be increased from 65 to 67 years?
We came here on the Bench because our predecessors retired at the age of 65. So, it is inter-generational equity. If we stay here, perhaps the next generation of judges will not have quicker elevation to the Bench… This is a matter of policy which the lawmakers have to decide.
Do you feel the court needs more women judges?
Of course, yes. The ethos is changing. Recently, I went to an event for inducting new judges in Rajasthan. Of about 190 of them, 129 were women. Again, in Odisha, in a similar event, 65% of the new judges were women. The percentage of women judicial officers is increasing. Women find judicial career acceptable. Today, if you think of the first 100 judges of the high courts, not more than 10 are women. The picture may change in 10-15 years. Hopefully, today we are completing 75 years, maybe when we complete 100 years, the ratio (of women judges) will be different.
The Supreme Court has been recently vocal on the “indiscriminate” use of arrest powers by law enforcement agencies. Is there a need to re-look at the criminal justice system?
Once a court is looking into it, we should not comment. Theoretically, if you want to relax certain conditions or to say that persons in certain situations should not be arrested, it is normal for the legislature to do that. For instance, under Section 437 (of the CrPC), women, children, the infirm or old persons are taken to be as a special category where your normal logic or conditions must be relaxed and the balance must be tilted in favour of these persons. It is not as if the Parliament has not noted it. The Parliament is cognisant of that, aware of that.
On social media or electronic media criticism about the conduct of judges?
Everything can be discussed on the floor of the House except the conduct of the judge. Except when impeachment motion is considered in the Parliament. There are two compartments — the ‘judgment compartment’ and the ‘judge compartment’. Any criticism about the validity or correctness of a judgment is welcome. It strengthens the institution, the process of law and administration of justice. Criticism of the conduct of a judge does not strengthen the institution, is not good for the society. Anybody who criticises a judgment should maintain a line and not overstep. A judge cannot respond. He or she suffocates under the barrage of criticism.
Should death sentence be struck off the law?
Constitutionally, death sentence is permissible, provided the parameters laid down in the Bachan Singh judgment are adhered to. The endeavour of every court is to see whether every case comes within the exceptions or not. As a judge I cannot say the death sentence should not be granted. I will see whether the facts justify the imposition of death penalty or not.
On the virtual court system?
Virtual courts are opening up new frontiers. Boundaries have become smudged. Lawyers from the Madras High Court can appear in the Supreme Court on any given day. It is opening new vistas. It is a welcome idea.
On the work of the collegium in filling up judicial vacancies?
The Collegium presided over by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, of which I and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar were part of, made 255 recommendations to the High Courts in the past 11 months. That is one-third of the entire strength of the High Courts. If responses are quick and immediate and if there is merit and talent, there would be no delay.
