Associate Editor, Raghul Sudheesh spoke to Justice Satya Brata Sinha on a wide range of issues including his views on the accessibility of Courts, his dissenting judgments, regulating the telecom sector and the status of the legal education system in the country.

Justice S. B. Sinha served as a Judge of the Supreme Court from 2002 to 2009, after which he was appointed as Chairperson, Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (“TDSAT”). He did his Bachelors in Law from Chota Nagpur Law College in 1967, following which he began his practice in the Dhanbad District Court in 1968. In 1976, he shifted his practice to Ranchi following the constitution of a Permanent Bench of the Patna High Court. Subsequently he was designated as Senior Advocate by the Patna High Court. He was elevated as a Judge of the Patna High Court on March 9, 1987 and transferred to the Calcutta High Court on May 11, 1994 where he eventually served as Acting Chief Justice. He was made Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court on December 11, 2000 and later transferred as Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court on November 26, 2001. He was elevated to the Supreme Court on October 3, 2002.

Raghul Sudheesh: What was the inspiration behind your decision to join the Bar?

Justice S. B. Sinha: I joined the profession because my father was a lawyer. I had seen my father working with ethical values and wanted to continue this tradition.

Raghul Sudheesh: Can you recollect your experiences in the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Calcutta and Delhi?

Justice S. B. Sinha: The Circumstances and atmosphere vary in different High Courts. There are numerous differences in the Bar as well as in the Bench in various courts. However I was satisfied with the secretarial services everywhere. The cooperation provided by the brother judges of Delhi was the best and the best Bar was the one in Calcutta.

Raghul Sudheesh: What memories can you recall from your days at the Supreme Court?

Justice S. B. Sinha: In the Supreme Court, all the lawyers were good. Umpteen complicated matters come before the Court and there are sufficient senior counsels to deal with it. In the case of administrative law and human rights law I was able to lay down some principles of law and thus helped in the development of law.

Raghul Sudheesh: What is your opinion about judges writing lengthy judgments?

Justice S. B. Sinha: Brevity is what we need today. The practice of writing long judgments should no longer be followed. Instead, we have to follow recent developments in other countries, particularly the European courts whose judgments are more precise than lengthy. Nowadays, long judgments are given mostly by US and UK courts. Brevity of judgment is the order of the day.

Raghul Sudheesh: You have dissented with Justice Markandey Katju on awarding the death sentence in Swami Sradhanada’s case and also in another case with regard to the powers of courts to issue directions to the Centre & the State in relation to implementation of provisions of Consumer Protection Act. What was the reason for the difference of opinion among the two judge Bench?

Justice S. B. Sinha: I have dissented in many judgments and this was not the first matter. I joined the Supreme Court in 2002 and started dissenting in cases for the first time in 2003 because of a difference in views.  In this particular instance, our opinions differed and therefore we dissented. I took the view that death penalty should not be given in all cases and the matter was referred to a three judge Bench which later agreed with my views. In the latter case, the matter is under consideration. But my decision was referred to by a three judge Bench of the Apex Court and also by a five judge Constitution Bench. It is an indication that they agree with my views.

Raghul Sudheesh: What is your opinion of the lower judiciary in the country? 

Justice S. B. Sinha: I do not think the judiciary is at its best, particularly in some states. But in the National Judicial Academy (“NJA”) we have always stressed on judicial reforms. I have released white papers pertaining to certain areas and I was also a party to many more documents prepared by the Judicial Academy which were not published. I wish the Chief Justice would look into those papers and take adequate steps. The NJA has proposed extensive education of judicial officers to make them fit for the post – not only with regard to change in attitude but also with regard to management of court work. To cite an example, the NJA formulated a court development plan advocating judicial reform.

Raghul Sudheesh: Even during your tenure at the Supreme Court, you used to visit the National Judicial Academy (NJA) and take lectures for District and High Court judges who come for training there. Now, you are the TDSAT Chairman and yet you remain actively involved in academic discussions. How do you manage to lead such a pro-active life?

Justice S. B. Sinha: It has been very difficult. I have not been able to go to the NJA for a few months. While I was in the Supreme Court, people used to call me very often for discussions and lectures, but post retirement from the Supreme Court they don’t call me very often. Recently, I was called from Pune for some lectures and interestingly I found the topic for discussion was “Dissenting Judgments”. It was the first time that I found such a different topic being selected for discussion.  Various aspects like what is dissention, why judgments are delivered with dissenting opinions, the effect of dissention etc. were discussed in detail. I think these students are going a step forward and even intend to publish a paper. The students approached me and asked me for the materials I have collected till date regarding this. It was a good experience. I don’t like classifying such experience as lectures as I consider them more as interactions.

Raghul Sudheesh: Do you think the higher judiciary in the nation is accessible to the poor? If not what can be done to mitigate the situation?

Justice S. B. Sinha: This is an issue which is to be seriously considered at the NJA and other places. If we take the case of Orissa, there is exclusion of litigation and corrective measures have been taken to rectify this. Therefore, this problem can be taken care of to some extent. However it is difficult to avoid exclusion of litigation completely. Recently there was a survey covering Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Orissa etc. where it was found that only 9% of the people have approached a court of law. For example - in Kerala, out of a total of 1000 issues, 28 civil cases come before a court whereas in Jharkhand & Bihar, it is 3 or 4 cases which come before a Court. Meanwhile, if we consider the situation in Singapore 83 out of a 1000 people approach a court and in US nearly 1/3^rd that is 30 – 33% of the total population go to a court of law. Unless and until there is a judicial reform, poor people cannot come to a court of law. The old and pending cases should be disposed off, thus creating space. Gradually the people will come to realise that their case can be cleared and results can be obtained in a short period. Then they will start thinking not only of the cost-effect or time-effect but also that “We have better judges who can try the cases”. However, I am not in a position to render any help with respect to the same.

Raghul Sudheesh: What is your take on corruption in the Judiciary?

Justice S.B. Sinha: Actually, there are different aspects. There may be states where there are more corrupt judicial officers and High Courts don’t bother to deal with them strictly. There are also states where corruption is dealt with heavily by the High Courts. Under such a situation, corruption is bound to go down. Corruption in the Supreme Court is a different question altogether.

Raghul Sudheesh: What is your take on the collegium system of appointing judges?

Justice S. B. Sinha: It is a law now and I would not comment on that. Moreover, I was also a part of the collegium system once and hence it is not proper on my part to comment.

Raghul Sudheesh: What is your opinion on the legal education system in the nation?

Justice S. B. Sinha: This is an area where much is required to be done. The present method of legal education does not take care of current needs. It is true that a few National Law Schools have earned a good name.  It is not because they have good teachers but because the students have done exceptionally well and is putting in their best efforts to utilize the infrastructure and other resources available.

To improve legal education, it is essential that universities provide students with good infrastructure. The Central and State governments need to do a great deal. Nowadays, law students have the opportunity to work with good lawyers as a part of their internship. They know how to carry out quality research. Thus, when the students are benefited by this process, they will employ those techniques and tricks picked up by them in their professional life as well. This will ultimately benefit them and the profession as well.

There are actually two sides to it. National Law Schools are created by the Bar and the Bench for having good lawyers; but this has not happened – this is one side. Another side is how long can we resist foreign law firms from entering India? Soon they are going to enter our country with a lot of money and they will certainly be interested in non-litigation. This is also an important aspect. If we do not have enough lawyers who can be their competitors, this can go out of hand. Expert lawyers are the need of the hour. If we go for bilateral agreements, we do not have good lawyers who can understand the necessities of bilateral international treaties.

Raghul Sudheesh: Do you believe that the telecom sector in India must be subject to stricter regulations or would you advocate more liberalisation as a means of boosting growth?

Justice S. B. Sinha: In today’s scenario, it is very difficult to give an answer. Some matters do not need strong regulation whereas strong regulations are necessary in certain other areas. Therefore, it depends on the field. Both the Government and Telephone Regulatory Authority of India [TRAI] have not thought of the ground realities. For example the Convergence issue (Convergence of voice, data, video, Internet telephony (VoIP), value added services and broadcasting services) – there is a need for an Act especially when it comes to this issue. Otherwise in the future, it will be difficult for the judiciary to make decisions when such matters come up for consideration in the absence of an Act.

Raghul Sudheesh: Is the judiciary at times stepping into the shoes of the executive and legislature and trying to overpower them?

Justice S. B. Sinha: There are aberrations. But by and large, the judiciary is stepping in only where it is necessary to do so. The Judiciary has to ultimately give effect to Directive Principles of State Policy.   Whenever these principles are not kept in mind, it is a different story.

Raghul Sudheesh: What are your future plans after the completion of your tenure at TDSAT?

Justice S. B. Sinha: No future plans. I don’t plan my future as such.