13 crore names were removed from electoral rolls by the Election Commission of India (ECI) but not meaningful orders have been passed by the Supreme Court despite petitions against the same remaining pending for months, former Delhi High Court Justice Rekha Sharma recently said.

The former judge said students, activists and members of civil society holding peaceful marches against the ECI were beaten up and pushed into police vans.

“It is happening right under the nose of the Supreme Court, which, under the Constitution, has been entrusted with the power to safeguard such rights of ordinary citizens,” Justice Sharma added.

Justice Sharma was speaking on “Accountability of Judges of the Supreme Court & High Court of India” at an event organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR).

She recalled that she had once supported the Collegium system but is now convinced that the Collegium system has “all but failed”,

“I myself, at one point, was a votary of the Collegium system. I will be very candid and not shy away from saying the Collegium system has all but failed,” the former judge said.

Justice Sharma observed that the system emerged against concerns that government-led appointments were influenced by nepotism, favouritism and political affiliations.

“The power of appointment of judges was taken away from the government, and the Supreme Court took it upon itself to appoint judges. But the remedy, let me be very candid, turned out to be worse than the disease,” she remarked.

She described nepotism and favouritism today as far more pronounced, far more blatant, far more political and far more relative-centric.

Referring to the appointment of then CJI's nephew to the Bombay High Court, Justice Sharma questioned whether the CJI’s recusal from the Collegium’s deliberations was sufficient.

“When there were murmurs about it, we were told the then Chief Justice of India had recused himself from the deliberations of the Collegium. Was that good enough?” the former Delhi High Court judge asked.

She further questioned whether the appointment could have waited until the CJI had left office.

Justice Sharma also referred to Justice Akil Kureshi’s non-elevation to the Supreme Court. According to her, the Collegium had remained deadlocked because the government did not want him elevated, while Justice Rohinton Nariman had insisted on his inclusion.

She pointed out that nine names were recommended following Justice Nariman’s retirement, leaving out Justice Kureshi.

“I’m not advocating anyone’s case in particular. I’m trying to indicate how the Collegium is functioning,” Justice Sharma explained.

Turning to judicial conduct, the former judge criticised the handling of former Allahabad High Court Justice Shekhar Yadav’s remarks against Muslims at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event.

“He was called by the Collegium, and it is understood that he agreed to give a public apology for his remarks. But when he went to the Allahabad High Court, he not only went back on his commitment but also wrote to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court that he had not violated any principles of judicial propriety by making those remarks,” she said.

She contrasted this with the treatment of Justice Atul Sreedharan, referring to his role in directing registration of an FIR over a Madhya Pradesh minister’s remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi.

Justice Sharma questioned the Collegium’s decision to change his proposed transfer from Chhattisgarh to Allahabad at the government’s request.

“Who should we blame? The government or the Collegium? Could the Collegium not put its foot down?” she asked.

The former judge said she found no difference between the Collegium’s functioning and the earlier system of government-led appointments.

“The Collegium system is working in the same way as appointments were being made by the government. I find no difference,” she said.

Justice Sharma also called for designated courts to hear criminal matters, stressing that bail and habeas corpus cases should receive priority.

“‘Bail, not jail, is the rule’, but judge after judge is making these words eat dust. Ask those languishing in jail for the last six years,” she remarked.