Supreme Court’s Mann-ki-Baat : Providing Incomplete Details and Misleading Information

PM Narendra Modi started its Mann-ki-Baat i.e. Straight from Heart, program in Oct’ 2014. It is often called Mann-Maani Baat i.e. Arrogant self-made decision, in Hindi to define it as One-way communication. The synonym (Mann-Maani Baat) coined by people augurs well with the style of Mann-ki-Baat program.

During the program, widely telecasted by Government owned Media and private owned live channels including radio channels, PM speaks whatever he wishes to speak. Further, he has absolutely no accountability to any true or false information he speaks during the program. Like, in one of the program PM Modi said that about Rs 3 Lacs crore untaxed cash was revealed during the infamous Demonetization exercise. [1] After few days of the program, Finance Ministry of the same Government gave completely different figures.

The topic of this is article is that Supreme Court of India has started the similar program and it can be similarly called Man-maani baat. Supreme Court of India can be equivalently called Brahmin Court, near 100% Brahmin caste representation, but this topic can be elaborated in a separate article.

Supreme Court has been following Collegium system of appointment of Judges in higher judiciary i.e. Supreme Court and High Court for the quite long time now. After a lot of criticism, Supreme Court has recently in Oct’2017 Supreme Court started publishing the “Resolution of Collegium” on its public website.

Let us analyze how the publication of “Resolution of Collegium” is akin to the Mann-ki-Baat.

In almost all the cases, the Collegium does not provide the full list of candidates who have shown their interest in the position. Further, it does not provide the shortlisted candidate, along with the rationale of short-listing, to be considered for the final selection process. Additionally, the Collegium report refers to the consultation with some colleagues, who are not named, and their individual comments are not published.

The report does not provide any mention of the colleagues being consulted for making such an important decision. Do they come from the family relation of the Collegium or have a conflict of interest with the candidate being considered for the position.

Moreover, the Collegium also refers to some letters by Chief Justice of High Court or the High Court Collegium recommendation without providing the contents of the communication. If this is not all, then the Collegium also refers to Intelligence Bureau report based on which candidate can be rejected and it never provided what objectionable issue caused the rejection of the candidate. There are numerous examples to illustrate the above points in a short history of three months, since the Supreme Court has started publishing the Collegium decisions.

The collegium decision dated 3rd Oct 2017 [2], the resolution decides on the appointment of Judges in Madras High Court. The collegium resolution doesn’t provide any details of the number of candidates considered for the position. One of the resolutions notes states,

“As regards Dr. K. Arul (mentioned at Sl. No. 6 above), keeping in view the material on record, including the report of Intelligence Bureau, he is not found suitable for elevation to the High Court Bench.”

But beyond this resolution does not provide any details what in the Intelligence report found him unsuitable for the position. If the person is criminal, then he should be immediately taken to task. Further, the document states that “we have gone through the letter dated 30th January 2017 of the then Chief Justice of the Madras High Court who has duly recorded reasons for not recommending names of these Judicial Officers. We are satisfied with the reasons assigned by the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court and find no merit in the said representations which deserve to be rejected.”

However, where is the 30th Jan 2017 letter and what are the reasons assigned for not recommending certain candidates. Are those valid reasons which public can trust?

Similarly, in another decision for the appointment of Judge in Kerala High Court taken on 3rd Oct 2017[3], the collegium states that

“… the proposal involves non-recommendation of a Judicial Officer of Kerala State Higher Judicial Service, who, in the seniority list of Judicial Officers, stands at a higher position than two of the above-named recommendees. In this regard, we are in agreement with the justification given by the High Court Collegium in its Minutes for overlooking his name.”

So, the question for any reader would be who the senior officer is not recommended. Further, what the justifications are provided by the High Court Collegium for not recommending the same.

Another collegium resolution for the decision taken on 10th Jan 2018 [4] states that

“In order to ascertain the suitability of the recommendees … for being appointed as Permanent Judges, we have consulted our colleagues who are conversant with the affairs of the Allahabad High Court.“

The Collegium report seems very similar to Mann-ki-Baat by PM Modi, both providing incomplete details and may be misleading information. For the citizens of the nation, both remain completely useless without providing any transparency and accountability to either Mr. Modi or Judiciary.

It is high time that the Judiciary realize the importance of their decision of Judge appointment. Without a credible judge, no judicial institution can survive. The trust of the people in Judiciary can only be gained by making the institution more transparent, efficient and accountable.