The high courts are pivotal, for they also have administrative power over the subordinate judiciary. They need to be more proactive on this issue. Most of the backlog is in subordinate courts. I do not believe that the resolution of the problem can be left to the political executive alone.

• VANDITA MISHRA: It appears that the judiciary is increasingly getting into the game of balancing interests rather than staying out of the arena of competing interests.

Not all judges do this. Some may, and that is why I have always argued for protecting the judiciary from political interference and instituting a system of checks in the process of appointments of judges.

As for as the appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and the high courts, in the light of up-to-date experience, I now feel that neither the prime minister nor the Chief Justice of India alone should have a decisive voice. Maybe another constitutional authority senior to both of them, say the vice-president, who doesn’t belong to either the executive or judiciary, should chair the judicial commission, comprising members from the judiciary headed by the CJI and members of the executive headed by the prime minister. This is a view I have expressed earlier. The details of the composition can be worked out.

I also feel that the correspondence relating to the appointment of judges should be made available under the RTI Act after the process is completed and the appointment made. I am against what happens in the U.S. during the process of selection. What is wrong in the correspondence being disclosed once the appointment is made? The transparency of the process will be an internal check against arbitrariness and will ensure accountability. The judiciary is entrusted with the task of keeping everyone else in check. It must have the moral authority to do so.

... contd.