Chief Justices need longer tenures

The Madras High Court in Chennai.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

In September, Chief Justices were appointed to eight High Courts across India. While a good move, the fact that all of them, with the exception of one, will have very short tenures is unfortunate. This is a persistent problem that calls for urgent remedial action since it affects the institutional effectiveness of the judiciary.

Short tenures

In fact, one Chief Justice has already completed his tenure. Justice Rajiv Shakdher, who was Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, retired after just 24 days, on October 18. Just as he was settling into his role, he had to attend his farewell. Justice Manmohan, who had been serving as the Acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, was sworn in as Chief Justice on September 29. On December 3, the Union government announced the appointment of Chief Justice Manmohan as a judge of the Supreme Court. Justice Tashi Rabstan will serve a tenure of about six months as Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, who was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, has a tenure of about eight months. Justice K.R. Shriram, appointed as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, will serve a one-year tenure. Justice Indra Prasanna Mukerji, the Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court, will also be retiring around the same time as Justice Shriram. Justice Nitin Madhukar Jamdar, Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, has a tenure of about 15 months. The only judge who is will serve a relatively long tenure of about four years is Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, who has been appointed as Chief Justice in Jharkhand.

The Chief Justice of a High Court plays a pivotal role in sustaining the all-round health of the institution. The Chief Justice administers the institution, tracks its financial health, plays an important role in recommending names for judgeship, constitutes various committees to administer the institution, attends to the welfare of the staff of the High Court, takes disciplinary action against erring trial court judges and staff when warranted, arranges for defence of such action before appropriate authorities when questioned, responds to innumerable mundane administrative requests, accepts invitations and participates in various symposia, seminars, and functions that are not necessarily restricted to law, participates in functions organised by the Bar Councils and various advocate associations across the State, and addresses problems related to legal education in the State apart from, of course, discharging the function as the top judicial authority of the State. Clearly, doing all of this in the time available is a daunting task.

High Courts are not compact institutions. Further, the tasks that need the attention of a Chief Justice in a High Court situated in one part of the country could be vastly different from what is required of a Chief Justice in a High Court in another part of the country. To understand each of these institutions in their entirety or even substantially takes time and effort. Most Chief Justices barely understand the requirements of the institution by the time their terms cease.

A lot has been said about the short tenure of Chief Justices. During his farewell speech in 2022, Supreme Court judge Justice L. Nageswara Rao said those elevated as judges to the top court must get a “minimum seven to eight years” in office “if not 10 years”. He said, “It takes them (Chief Justices) 1.5 to two years to understand how the Court functions here because it is completely different from the High Courts.” He added that by the time they settle down, “they are looking at their retirement”. Several Chief Justices who have retired after brief tenures have voiced similar sentiments. This is a similar lament among Chief Justices of the High Courts too. Yet, little attention has been paid to the problem.

A lesson from the British

It was not so during British rule. Back then, it was a norm for Chief Justices to have long tenures. The Madras High Court came into existence in 1862. When it completed 150 years in 2012, it had completed 85 years as a Court in British India and 65 years as a Court in independent India. The first Chief Justice was Sir Colley Harman Scotland. In 1947, when it had completed 85 years, the Madras High Court had had just 11 Chief Justices. Each of them had enjoyed an average tenure of a little less than eight years. During the Madras High Court’s 150th year celebrations, Justice M.Y. Iqbal was the 35th Chief Justice. So, in 65 years, the Court had had 24 Chief Justices, which means the average tenure of those judges was hardly 2.75 years. The average term reduces further when we deduct the tenures of Chief Justice P.V. Rajamannar, who served a term of 13 years, and Chief Justice Veeraswami K., who had a tenure of about seven years. This means that there were 22 Chief Justices in 45 years, which brings down the average term of each to merely more than over two years.

While the tasks of Chief Justices are only increasing and becoming more complicated, the duration given to them to address these are becoming shorter and shorter. When the system provides such little time for the incumbents to even understand the system, what scope is there for innovation, reform, and improvement?

The attempt here is not to provide prescriptions to the malady. It is to emphasise that the problem needs to be addressed. It can only be resolved by a joint deliberation of stakeholders, including the Bar. It is important that they evolve a solution before the problem seriously affects the system.

N.L. Rajah, Senior Advocate, Madras High Court