CJI DY Chandrachud Highlighted Four Issues in Legal Profession

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) spotlighted four critical issues in the judiciary during the Foundation Day address on the 75th anniversary of the Su

CJI DY Chandrachud Highlighted Four Issues in Legal Profession 

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud emphasized the necessity for the judiciary to stay pertinent by acknowledging existing challenges and initiating "difficult conversations". Speaking on Sunday, he highlighted concerns such as the prevalent "adjournment culture" and the tradition of prolonged court vacations. Furthermore, he underlined the importance of enhancing the representation of marginalized communities and ensuring equal opportunities for first-generation lawyers.

The Chief Justice of India also drew attention to the demographic shifts happening in India, noting that women, who have historically been underrepresented in the legal field, now make up 36.3 percent of the workforce in the district judiciary.

CJI Chandrachud advocated for the integration of various segments of society into the legal profession, highlighting that the representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes remains significantly low, both in legal practice and within the judiciary.

Describing it as a "momentous occasion" in the nation's history, CJI Chandrachud remarked that women are now visible in significant roles across India.

CJI Chandrachud noted, "There is an emphasis on enhancing the inclusion of marginalized sections of society. Just as motivating is the younger generation's confidence in achieving success in their professional endeavors."

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) spotlighted four critical issues in the judiciary during the Foundation Day address on the 75th anniversary of the Supreme Court's establishment, underscoring the need for "difficult conversations" to tackle them. Here's an overview of the state of these issues and past efforts to address them:

Adjournment Culture

This refers to the frequent practice of lawyers requesting postponements of hearings, which can lead to significant delays in the resolution of cases. Efforts to address this issue have included stricter rules and guidelines from the judiciary to limit unnecessary adjournments. Courts have been encouraged to be more discerning in granting adjournments, only allowing them for substantial reasons. Despite these efforts, the culture persists, partly due to ingrained practices and the workload on the judiciary.

The issue of adjournments in the Indian judiciary, particularly highlighted by the Supreme Court justices, underscores a longstanding challenge that impacts the efficiency and timely delivery of justice. 

The reference to Justice Dipak Misra's observations in the 2016 case of Gayathri v. M. Girish illustrates the extent of the problem, where a lawyer's repeated requests for adjournments significantly delayed the proceedings, likening it to a suspension of time within the lawsuit.

This instance vividly captures the judiciary's concern over the misuse of adjournments, which, while often necessary for fair legal processes, can be exploited to hinder the progress of cases.

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), particularly Order XVII, attempts to regulate this by setting guidelines that limit the number of adjournments that can be granted and underlining the necessity of showing sufficient cause for such requests. These rules aim to mitigate unnecessary delays, yet the practice of seeking adjournments remains prevalent, contributing to a backlog of cases and affecting the judiciary's workload.

The Law Commission of India, in its 239th Report, further delves into the ramifications of this practice, noting how the heavy caseloads in courts can be exploited to obtain adjournments, thus exacerbating the backlog and creating a cycle of delays. This observation highlights a systemic issue within the legal process, where the volume of pending cases can both cause and be exacerbated by the adjournment culture.

Addressing the adjournment culture requires a multifaceted approach, involving stricter adherence to the guidelines laid out in the CPC, increasing judicial manpower to handle the caseload efficiently, and fostering a legal culture that prioritizes the expedient resolution of cases. It also calls for a collective effort from all stakeholders in the legal system, including lawyers, to reconsider the ethical implications of seeking adjournments and to work towards a more efficient and just legal process.

In a more contemporary reflection of this issue, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud's remarks, invoking a famous dialogue by actor Sunny Deol to criticize the culture of adjournments, brings to light the Supreme Court's ongoing struggle with this issue. The statistic he provided, noting a significant number of adjournment requests within a short period, emphasizes the persistent nature of this challenge despite repeated judicial advisories against it.

Frequent adjournments can lead to a backlog of legislative business, delaying the passage of important bills and the discussion of key policy issues. The time and resources allocated for legislative sessions are not utilized effectively, leading to a waste of public funds.

The adjournment culture can contribute to a negative public perception of legislative bodies, seen as ineffective or unconcerned with governance. The inability to discuss and pass legislation in a timely manner can have a direct impact on governance, affecting the implementation of policies and programs.

Limiting the Length of Oral Arguments

Extensive oral arguments can consume considerable court time, affecting the court's efficiency. In the past, there have been calls for setting time limits on arguments to streamline proceedings and ensure that cases move more swiftly through the system. Some courts have experimented with imposing time limits for arguments, but implementing this broadly requires balancing thoroughness with efficiency, which is a complex issue.

The practice of directing parties to confer and create a time schedule for oral arguments in constitutional bench matters, where important questions of law require the decision of five or more Supreme Court (SC) judges, is a strategic approach aimed at enhancing judicial efficiency. This method seeks to prevent the repetition of arguments by lawyers representing the same side, thereby streamlining the hearing process. One of the landmark instances where this practice was notably applied was during the Ayodhya title dispute.

In January 2019, then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi took a decisive step by instructing the parties involved in the Ayodhya case to prepare a time schedule for the hearings, recognizing the complexity and the large number of parties and lawyers involved. Despite this effort to manage the proceedings efficiently, the case extended over 60 hearings from August to October 2019 before the court finally reserved its judgment, illustrating the challenges of adhering to a predetermined schedule in exceptionally intricate and contentious cases.

However, the judiciary has observed more success with this procedural strategy in more recent times. During a period when constitution bench hearings were scarce, notably during CJI N.V. Ramana’s tenure, a significant shift occurred as 25 constitution bench cases were listed for hearing just before CJI U.U. Lalit assumed office in August 2022. One of the initial constitution bench cases under CJI Lalit’s leadership involved the challenge against the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservations. 

Demonstrating an effective application of the scheduling practice, the bench led by CJI Lalit directed the involved lawyers to agree on a time schedule. Remarkably, the hearings in this critical case were completed within eight days, showcasing the potential of this approach to significantly reduce the duration of court proceedings and enhance the court's efficiency in dealing with matters of constitutional importance.

Limiting the length of oral arguments can contribute significantly to the effectiveness and efficiency of judicial proceedings. However, it requires careful implementation and a degree of flexibility to ensure that justice is served in each case. Courts must balance the need for concise arguments with the need for thorough examination of complex legal issues, ensuring that neither efficiency nor justice is compromised.

This evolution in handling constitution bench matters reflects a growing recognition of the need for more structured and time-conscious proceedings in the Supreme Court, especially for cases that bear significant legal and societal implications.

Length of Court Vacations

In his discourse, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) highlighted potential innovative work arrangements such as flexi-time for both lawyers and judges. Flexi-time allows individuals the flexibility to determine their own work schedules, provided they fulfill a predetermined number of working hours within a specific timeframe.

This concept was put into practice in the Philippines in 2022, specifically for staff and judges at the Metropolitan and Regional trial courts. Under this policy, employees who do not hold supervisory or managerial roles were given the option to request flexible working hours, with the condition that they present a valid and justified reason for such a request.

The judiciary's long vacations, particularly in the higher courts, have been a point of debate. Critics argue that they contribute to case backlogs. There have been suggestions to reduce these vacations to increase the judiciary's working days. While there is recognition of the need for judges to have time for research and rest, the challenge lies in finding a balance that does not compromise the quality of judicial work or delay justice.

Previously, the issue of lengthy court vacations and their impact on the backlog of cases has been a point of contention, drawing criticism and suggestions for reform from various quarters. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, led by BJP MP Brij Lal, addressed this concern in its 133rd report. 

The committee proposed that High Court judges could alternate their vacation periods to help reduce the growing backlog of cases. Highlighting that the tradition of court vacations is a "colonial legacy" causing significant inconvenience to those awaiting justice, the report advocated for a more continuous operation of the judiciary.

The subject of court vacations has also been scrutinized by the central government. In 2022, the then-Law Minister Kiren Rijiju voiced his criticism regarding the judiciary's lengthy breaks, especially in light of the escalating number of pending cases each year. A similar concern was raised in 2011 by the Ministry of Law and Justice, which noted that High Courts typically operate for 210 days annually. The Ministry urged all High Courts to extend their working days to at least 222 to mitigate case backlog issues.

The Supreme Court took a notable step towards addressing this issue in 2014 by amending the Supreme Court Rules. According to the new rules, the duration of the summer vacation was capped at seven weeks, a reduction from the previous ten weeks. 

This adjustment was in alignment with the recommendations from the Malimath Committee Report of 2003, which advocated for extending the Supreme Court's operational days by three weeks. These measures reflect ongoing efforts to enhance judicial efficiency and reduce delays, acknowledging the need to adapt and reform traditional practices for the modern legal landscape.

Level Playing Field for First-Generation Lawyers

First-generation lawyers, especially those from diverse and underprivileged backgrounds, often face barriers in establishing themselves in the legal profession. Initiatives to support them have included mentorship programs, legal aid clinics, and scholarships. However, more systemic changes are needed to ensure equitable opportunities, such as improving access to legal education and resources, and fostering a more inclusive professional environment within the legal community.

Chief Justice of India, CJI Chandrachud, emphasized the importance of creating an equitable environment for first-generation lawyers and individuals from underrepresented communities who possess the determination and capability to excel. He pointed out the recent advancements made in this direction, noting that women now constitute 36.3% of judges in district courts and surpass 50% of the successful applicants in the recruitment examination for junior civil judges. 

Additionally, women represented 41% of the law clerk applicants at the Supreme Court, showcasing a significant move towards inclusivity and diversity within the legal profession.

The Supreme Court Annual Report for September 2023 highlighted the initiatives taken by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) to enhance diversity within the legal field. Efforts include improving facilities for female lawyers, assigning additional importance to first-generation lawyers in the selection of Senior Advocates, and enabling legal professionals to participate in hearings via video conferencing on all operational days. 

This last measure is particularly aimed at lowering the barriers for first-generation lawyers and female lawyers with young children, facilitating their participation in legal proceedings.

Justice Hima Kohli has recognized the significance of these developments, remarking on the positive impact of welcoming first-generation lawyers from diverse backgrounds and increasing female representation in the legal sector as steps toward a more inclusive profession.

In 2023, the Supreme Court, under a bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, made noteworthy statements regarding first-generation lawyers in two distinct rulings. In May, while deliberating on the criteria for the designation of Senior Advocates, the Court acknowledged the importance of considering diversity, especially concerning gender and first-generation lawyers. 

Later, in a separate judgment dismissing objections against the practice of appointing Senior Advocates, Justice Kaul's bench addressed the growing presence of first-generation lawyers, criticizing the notion that lawyers gain recognition only through wealth or close relations with the judiciary, thereby affirming the evolving inclusivity within the legal profession.

Addressing these issues is crucial for enhancing the efficiency, accessibility, and fairness of the judiciary. While some steps have been taken in the past, ongoing dialogue, policy changes, and reforms are necessary to address these challenges comprehensively.