Hero worship of the Chief Justice of India stems from the concentration of too much power in the office, said former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka on Tuesday.

Justice Oka made the observation in a keynote address he gave at a seminar on “Accountability of Judges” organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR).

"Look at the Supreme Court... most of the administrative decisions are taken by only the Chief Justice of India. And so Chief Justice controls most of the administrative functions of the Supreme Court... because of this, all powerful position of the Chief Justice, sometimes stakeholders indulge in hero worship of Chief Justice of India," said Justice Oka.

He said that such a concentration of power was a concern that had also been raised by Dr BR Ambedkar during the Constituent Assembly debates.

"He (Dr BR Ambedkar) had warned all of us about serious consequence of hero worship. Because hero worship comes from absolute power concentrated in the hands of the Chief Justice of India," noted Justice Oka.

He added that the Supreme Court needed a proper roster system to prevent manual intervention in the allocation of cases to benches. He observed that the Supreme Court currently assigns the same categories of cases to multiple Benches, leaving litigants and lawyers uncertain about which Bench would hear a particular matter.

Justice Oka argued that a clear roster system, similar to those followed by High Courts, would improve transparency and accountability.

"Supreme Court of India will become more accountable to the litigants if it introduces a proper system of roster on par with the High Court so that manual intervention even by the Chief Justice of India is ruled out," he said.

Justice Oka also criticised the practice of higher courts directing High Courts and trial courts to decide particular cases within fixed timelines. He held that such orders could give preferential treatment to litigants who could afford to approach a higher court.

He said these directions often failed to account for older cases pending before the same courts and the competing demands on judges.

"I am reminded of famous temples in India where there are two queues. One queue of normal people and a queue of VIPs. (It is) because of this system that somebody going to higher court, higher court is directing disposal of out-of-turn disposal - now we are creating two different classes of the litigants. That actually harms the accountability of our courts," remarked Justice Oka.

Addressing complaints against judges, Justice Oka cautioned against creating a system in which every complaint automatically triggers an inquiry.

Drawing on his experience as a Bombay High Court judge, he said,

"The judges who are very strict, the judges who work more, and judges who have large disposal, and judges who deliver, if I'm allowed to say, bold judgments, they face more complaints than any other judge."

He added that a mechanism to address complaints was necessary, but it should not prevent judges from discharging their duties without fear or favour.

Justice Oka, however, stressed that judgments of constitutional courts should be open to public scrutiny.

"There is no harm if there is a constructive discussion about the judgments and in a very decent manner that nobody should attribute motives to any judges," he added.

Additionally, Justice Oka noted that the merits of a judgment should be assessed independently of whether its outcome favoured the government.

"Correctness and quality of the judgment or a decision of the court cannot depend upon whether it favours the government or the establishment. If the court's decision is correct and favours the government, one cannot attach motives to the judges," said Justice Oka.

He warned against criticism driven by the identity of the party that benefits from a ruling.

"Now we see there's a tendency when there is a correctly delivered judgment, because it is in the favour of the government or establishment, that judgment is criticized, motives are attached. This should not happen. There should be very dispassionate and correct discussion on the merits and demerits of the judgments of the High Court and Supreme Court," held Justice Oka.

He observed that citizens were entitled to question judicial decisions, but constructive criticism required identifying specific legal errors rather than merely disagreeing with the outcome.

"What do I mean by constructive criticism? It can't be that 'I don't agree with the judgment.' I have to say where the Supreme Court or High Court has gone legally wrong. Give reasons," held Justice Oka.

He added that such debates could help improve the quality of judicial decisions.

"If there is always a very healthy and constructive debates about important judgment delivered by our constitutional courts, I personally feel that that debate will certainly help in improving the quality of judgments which are delivered," said Justice Oka.