“Brazen apathy and indifference of Executive”, Calcutta High Court rips into Centre for not appointing judges

Judiciary has spoken, from the East. The Calcutta High Court has made some very scathing observations regarding the failure of the Centre in appointing judges to the High Court..The observations were made by a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Debi Prosad Dey in an anticipatory bail application of a Bengali Film Actor, Bikram Chatterjee..The actor’s bail application could not be listed in time by the court as a result of which he was arrested by the police rendering his plea infructuous..The Court, chose the occasion to allude to the problem of shortage of judges by referring it as a “very major problem that the oldest High Court of the country is encountering.”.“The time is now ripe for speaking our mind out or else this premier institution, which has stood tall despite several odds, would gradually cease to lose its efficacy. The bar and the litigant public have been tolerant so long, but this Bench cannot remain a silent spectator waiting for the inevitable ire to explode.”.The Court then proceeds to blast the Executive, which over the years, has neglected to resolve the problem by their various shades of authoritarianism..“It is does not require one to be super intelligent to make the right guess. It is the problem of dearth of adequate number of Judges in this Court. It has continued from yester-years and assumed the character of a perpetual concern, which the powers that be having the wherewithal to address and resolve have neglected by their various shades of authoritarianism.”.Setting out the data regarding vacancies in Calcutta High Court, the Court says,.“The sanctioned strength of Judges in this Court is 72 (seventy-two). Till a couple of years back, the sanctioned strength was 58 (fiftyeight). Today, this Court has a functional strength of 34 (thirty-four) Judges only. The present functional strength is, therefore, a little less than 50% of the sanctioned strength. During the first six months of this year, 4 (four) Judges have already retired. In course of the next month 3 (three) Judges and by November 8, 2017, another 4 (four) Judges including the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice would lay down office. In February next, 3 (three) more Judges would retire. If no Judge is appointed by February 11, 2018, the vacancy would rise to nearly 66%.”.The order then goes on to state that due to the shortage of judges in the court, each judge is being forced to deal with “matters of two/three other Benches apart from their own determination”. Yet, they have not been able to live up to the expectations of the litigants..The Court then proceeds to asks a pertinent a question: “Can the nation think of the Lok Sabha in a functional state with half of its elected members? Similarly, can Legislative Assemblies function at half-strength?”.“The answer cannot be in the affirmative. The Lok Sabha and/or the Legislative Assemblies are important Constitutional entities and it would be a disgrace for the largest democracy of the world if elections were not conducted on time. Even though an election process may apparently be tainted, it is by judicial verdicts stressing on non-interference prior to completion of the election process and subject to result of any election petition that is presented before the appropriate forum that returned candidates fill up seats in the House/Assemblies. Again, does one find the bureaucracy functioning years after years without sufficient personnel? No time is spared in making the necessary appointments at the right time to ensure its smooth functioning.”.Berating the political executive for its apathy in filling up vacancies to judiciary and its step-motherly attitude towards courts and judiciary, the Court states,.“This Bench is thus left to wonder as to why only in respect of filling up of vacancies in the High Courts, which are also high Constitutional authorities, there is such a brazen apathy and indifference of the political executive. In our Constitutional scheme, the superior judiciary is regarded as the sentinel on the qui vive being the protectors and enforcers of fundamental rights of the people of the country. The ‘judiciary’ is also a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, obliged to safeguard the fundamental rights of the people…...In a democratic polity where the rule of law is dominant, the independence of the judiciary is regarded as a basic structure of the Constitution,….rendering a particular High Court ineffective by adopting a stepmotherly attitude cannot but draw the frown of a civilised society.”.The Court ends the order by urging the Executive to act and has asked the Registrar General of the High Court to ensure that the concerns expressed in this order reaches the Union Law Minister..“In such grave and ominous situation, this Bench expresses hope and trust that the authorities wielding power would spare a thought for this Court and take immediate ameliorative measures so as to prevent the system from collapsing with the ensuing retirement of 7 (seven) more Judges by early November, 2017 and 3 (three) more by early February, 2018..This Bench is of the opinion that the concerns expressed in this order (from paragraphs 20 to 32) should reach the Hon’ble Law Minister of the Union immediately so that the matter relating to appointment of Judges in this Court is given topmost priority. The Registrar General shall do the needful without wasting any time.”.The Court also advised caution to the Central government as a parting remark..“The politeness of this Bench may not be understood as weakness on its part to be firm. It is made clear that continued silence of the Central Government in the matter of appointment of Judges in the near future despite the concerns expressed in this order, would certainly be viewed seriously as interference in the course of administration of justice and followed by appropriate action as authorized in law.”.Advocates Sekhar Kumar Basu and Rajdeep Mazumder appeared for the petitioner while advocates Saswata Gopal Mukerjee and Rudradipta Nandy represented the State. Advocates Debasis Roy, Sabyasachi Banerjee, Sanjay Basu, Bilwadal Bhattacharya, S Chowdhury and Soumen Mohanty appeared for the de-facto complainant..Read the order below.