Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, along with Justice Surya Kant, who is set to succeed him, have recently voiced their disapproval of the growing trend among superior court judges to offer commentary on the knowledge and capabilities of judges serving in lower courts. Both Justices emphasized that the role of the Supreme Court and High Courts should primarily be to rectify, modify, or annul orders or judgments if they are deemed flawed.
CJI Gavai underscored that High Courts are not subordinate to the Supreme Court, as both are constitutional courts. He clarified that the Supreme Court's authority extends only to rectifying, modifying, or setting aside orders and judgments of the High Courts, and does not include the power to comment on the abilities, capabilities, or knowledge of individual High Court judges.
Justice Kant echoed this sentiment, advocating for superior court judges to act as mentors and guides for lower court judges. He suggested that persuasion and guidance are more effective approaches than criticism and condemnation within the three-tiered justice delivery system.
These remarks gain significance in light of a recent incident where a Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, criticized an Allahabad High Court judge for issuing what they termed "the worst and most erroneous order" and subsequently barred him from hearing criminal cases. The bench later retracted its directive to de-roster the judge, requesting the High Court Chief Justice to address the matter.
Justice Kant further clarified that the Supreme Court lacks the authority to dictate the rosters of High Courts. CJI Gavai, endorsing the principle that "a judge who has not committed a mistake is yet to be born," extended this philosophy to High Court judges. He suggested that High Court judges should refrain from publicly criticizing judicial officers for perceived lack of ability, knowledge, or capability when reviewing appeals against their orders. Instead, he recommended that concerns about improvement areas should be conveyed administratively, emphasizing the crucial role of High Court Chief Justices in this process.
CJI Gavai has been a strong advocate for judicial independence and has often spoken about the importance of the judiciary in upholding the rights of citizens. He has also stressed the need for the judiciary to be accessible, intelligible, and answerable, without compromising its independence. He believes that the judiciary's legitimacy stems from upholding constitutional values with independence, integrity, and impartiality.
In line with this, CJI Gavai has expressed concerns about judges accepting government appointments or contesting elections soon after retirement, noting that such actions raise ethical questions and undermine public confidence in the judiciary. He and several of his colleagues have pledged not to accept any post-retirement roles or positions from the government to preserve the judiciary's credibility and independence.
Furthermore, CJI Gavai has emphasized the importance of the judiciary in ensuring justice reaches every citizen. He has advocated for decentralization to bring justice to people's doorsteps, asserting that the judiciary, legislature, and executive exist to serve the people and ensure swift and affordable justice.
