[Collegium meeting] Face to face discussion better than circulating letter: Justice Madan Lokur

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan Lokur recently opined that it is advisable that judges in the collegium have face to face discussions before finalising recommendations rather than doing it via letter circulation..The remarks were made in the context of recent controversy that arose from a letter sent by Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit to his fellow judges in the collegium seeking consent for appointment of four new judges to the Supreme Court. “I think it is better to have a face to face meeting. Discuss, like we are doing right now. Why letters? Discussions are the best way of deciding something as important as this", he said.Justice Lokur was responding to an audience question posed by Bar & Bench Editor Pallavi Saluja during an interview of the former judge by journalist Karan Thapar on the subject of 'Tracing the evolution of the Indian justice system.'During the Q&A session, Saluja asked the judge what he thought of the unprecedented move made by the CJI to which he responded that while he did not know the circumstances under which the letter was circulated, it was certainly unprecedented. .The judge, however, did express that he was in favour of the collegium system for appointment and transfer of judges in High Courts and the Supreme Court, since it is the only bulwark against executive excesses in the matter of judicial appointments.Absence of a collegium, he said, would invite trouble when a government at the centre enjoys strong majority. "I am in favour of the collegium system.. The collegium system is the only bulwark against executive excesses in the matter of appointment of judges," he said while saying that it was the only way to prevent the government from doing exactly what it wants..Despite this, he went on to note that the collegium system needed certain changes in order to better itself such as developing a criteria for recommending judges. "The Chief Justice of India did say a few days ago that the collegium system selects the best. But it does not select those who are better than the best. That is the problem. There is no system of selecting Supreme Court judges. I suggested that there should be some kind of criteria.".Responding to another question posed by Saluja, he expressed his shock at the revelations made by Justice Indira Banerjee in a recent interview with Bar & Bench wherein she said that an apex court judge, who was junior to her, did not allow five judgments authored by her to be delivered in court.“I was pretty taken aback”, Justice Lokur said about the episode.He nevertheless said that she could have put her foot down, delivered the judgments and the dissenting judge could have rendered his opinion later. .Further sharing his thoughts on Supreme Court judges accepting positions after their retirement, he advised against the practice stating that, "Post retirement jobs should be avoided.. The judiciary survives on the trust and confidence of people and that is shattered, or at least, people start to have doubts.".On the issue of cases of national importance not being heard by the Supreme Court on time, he emphasised that certain cases have to be prioritised particularly those which have an impact throughout the country and case on the interpretation of the Constitution.“Something like the electoral bonds for example is going to affect elections.. it has to be given priority. Free and fair elections is a part of the basic structure of our democracy.”.The former Supreme Court judge also said that according to him all High Courts as well as the Supreme Court ought to have a public relations officer (PRO).“There are things that the common citizen doesn’t understand because of not being familiar with the procedure or being otherwise misled. A PRO can clarify that position,” he reasoned..On being asked whether the he was disappointed in the way the apex court had defended the rights of citizens, he said that while the top court had gone through a “bad patch”, he hoped that the tide would turn.He added that we are witnessing a situation with a strong executive with the courts being reluctant to take on the government.“If you have nothing to lose, why should a strong government or weak government make a difference?”, he wondered.