CJI Calls for National Judicial Policy
Kartavya Desk Staff
Source: LL
Context: Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has called for a uniform national judicial policy to reduce inconsistent rulings across High Courts and Supreme Court Benches.
About CJI Calls for National Judicial Policy:
What It Is?
A national judicial policy would act as a common guiding framework for all courts to follow uniform standards. It aims to bring consistent interpretation of laws across 25 High Courts and SC Benches. Helps courts speak in “one rhythm” on major constitutional and legal issues.
Need For Consistent National Judicial Policy:
• Divergent Interpretations: Different High Courts often given conflicting rulings, creating confusion for citizens and institutions.
• Multiple SC Benches Differ: Inconsistent orders from separate Benches reduce certainty in national policies and governance.
• Heavy Pendency: With 5.4 crore pending cases, standardised case management is essential across all tiers of judiciary.
• Barriers to Justice: High costs, language gaps, long distances and delays prevent marginalised groups from accessing courts.
• Uneven Infrastructure: Court facilities, technology and staffing vary widely between states, affecting equal justice.
• Need for Judicial Harmony: A unified approach ensures courts follow the same constitutional principles while acting independently
Initiatives Taken:
• Mediation Promotion: The judiciary is pushing structured mediation and training to reduce litigation and settle disputes faster.
• Digital Justice Tools: Courts now use e-filing, virtual hearings, transcripts and multilingual digital platforms to improve access.
• Strengthening Arbitration: India has upgraded arbitration centres and aligned procedures with global best practices.
• International Cooperation: Judicial exchanges help courts learn modern practices and improve cross-border legal coordination.
• Focus on Infrastructure: Emphasis is on modern court complexes, better staffing and technological upgrades to reduce delays.
Challenges Associated:
• Federal Structure Complexity: Diverse state laws, languages and local practices make it difficult to enforce a uniform judicial system across India.
Eg: Madras High Court in 2024 rejected Tamil Nadu’s proposal to use Tamil in proceedings, insisting English remain the sole court language.
• Judicial Independence Concerns: A national policy must not dilute High Courts’ constitutional autonomy under Articles 226/225 or allow executive overreach.
Eg: SC struck down parts of the Tribunal Reforms Act (2021) for undermining judicial independence in appointments and tenure.
• Infrastructure Gaps: Uneven infrastructure—poor connectivity, lack of staff, basic facilities—makes uniform digital and procedural standards impossible.
Eg: 2025 Satgawan (Jharkhand) reported frequent internet collapse; 26% courts still lack ladies’ toilets and many have no power backup.
• Judge Shortage: Massive vacancies and overwhelming caseloads make it impossible to achieve uniform timelines, case-flow management or speedy disposal.
Eg: Allahabad HC in 2025 ran with nearly 50% vacancies, leaving single judges hearing 80–100 cases per day.
• Resistance to Change: Lawyers and court staff often oppose sweeping reforms—especially digital ones—implemented without training or support systems.
Eg: Thoothukudi and Puducherry lawyers boycotted courts in 2023 over mandatory e-filing, citing lack of training and infrastructure.
• Digital Divide: Technology-heavy reforms risk excluding rural and marginalised populations who lack devices, literacy, or stable data access.
Eg: A WebEx glitch delayed Delhi HC proceedings by 45 minutes, while SC/ST communities in Kurnool lacked basic devices for virtual hearings.
Way Forward:
• Draft a National Judicial Policy: SC, HCs and Law Ministry must jointly create a framework balancing uniformity and autonomy.
• Harmonise Court Procedures: Standard rules on listing, case timelines, precedents and documentation can reduce divergence.
• Strengthen Lower Judiciary: More judges, staff, training and infrastructure are essential for uniform justice at the grassroots.
• Expand Tech Access: Digital platforms must be inclusive, secure, multilingual and accessible even in remote districts.
• Scale Up ADR & Mediation: Mandatory pre-litigation mediation can significantly reduce the court burden and ensure faster relief.
• Higher Coordination: Regular judicial conferences and structured communication will align SC and HC approaches.
Conclusion:
A national judicial policy can bring clarity, predictability and fairness across India’s justice system. By harmonising judicial behaviour and improving access, it strengthens citizens’ trust in courts. As the CJI noted, constitutional rights gain meaning only when justice is timely, consistent and accessible to all.
“The experience of former judges can enrich governance, but it must be weighed against risks to judicial independence”. Critically examine in the context of post-retirement appointments. What safeguards are necessary to uphold constitutional trust?