At the Wayanad Literature Festival, a panel discussed the Supreme Court’s 75-year history, highlighting concerns about representation and institutional reforms. Experts criticized the court’s upper-caste dominance, workload, and the handling of bail petitions. They advocated for increased diversity, better management, and reinforced civil society’s role in monitoring judicial performance.
Wayanad: At the Wayanad Literature Festival on December 28, a panel discussion titled “Seventy-five Years of Supreme Court of India: What History Does It Leave Behind?” brought to light significant concerns about the composition and functioning of the Supreme Court. Featuring retired Supreme Court Judge Jasti Chelameswar, constitutional law expert Shyam Divan, and legal scholar Professor G Mohan Gopal, the discussion emphasized the urgent need for diversity, institutional reforms, and better management in India’s highest judicial body.
Moderated by journalist Leena Gita Raghunath, the session touched on issues ranging from caste representation to case backlogs.
Legal scholar Professor Mohan Gopal strongly criticized the lack of representation in the judiciary.
“In 75 years, we have never had a judge in the Supreme Court with the surname Yadav; we have never had an Ezhava judge,”
he said. He argued that the court was dominated by a few upper-caste communities, creating what he described as a “small oligarchy, as Ambedkar feared.”
Advocate Shyam Divan echoed this sentiment, stressing that increased representation through diversity would transform the Supreme Court into “a people’s court.” He also pointed out the need to decentralize power concentrated in the hands of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and high court chief justices, suggesting that “big institutional reforms can help.”
Read Also: Delhi High Court Grants Relief to Saregama in Copyright Dispute with Movie World
With approximately 80,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court and a monthly disposal rate of 5,000, Justice Chelameswar described the situation in one word: “chaos.” He expressed skepticism about the court’s ability to resolve all pending cases, stating, “Even if the pending cases are disposed of after 50 years, new cases keep getting added.”
Justice Chelameswar also criticized the Supreme Court’s practice of hearing bail petitions, calling it an inappropriate use of the court’s time.
“Why is the highest court in the country hearing bail petitions? Bail is very important for liberty, but it should not reach the SC. If it does, there is something wrong with the system,”
he said. He emphasized that bail matters should be resolved at the district court level to reduce the burden on the apex court.
Justice Chelameswar underscored the importance of civil society in a functioning democracy.
“Civil society must constantly evaluate and audit the performance of every institution in a democracy. If civil society keeps quiet, then nothing can happen,”
he remarked.
Both Justice Chelameswar and Shyam Divan highlighted the need to relieve judges from administrative responsibilities. Divan advocated for professional management of courts, stating,
“Professional management can help us make more strides and allow judges to focus solely on delivering justice.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE