PIL Seeks Law for Public Access to Judges' Oral Observations
TMC spokesperson Saket Gokhale filed a PIL in the Supreme Court, advocating for a law to make judges' oral observations public for greater transparency and accountability.
Photo by Samyak Bothra
TMC spokesperson Saket Gokhale has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court, urging the creation of a law that would make judges' oral observations during court proceedings public. Gokhale argues that such a move would significantly enhance transparency and accountability within the judiciary, citing the United States as an example where similar observations are publicly accessible.
Essentially, this PIL is pushing for greater openness in judicial processes, beyond just written judgments, allowing citizens to better understand the reasoning and discussions that unfold in courtrooms. It raises important questions about judicial transparency and the balance between judicial independence and public accountability.
Key Facts
PIL filed by TMC spokesperson Saket Gokhale in Supreme Court
Seeks a law to make judges' oral observations public
Aims to enhance transparency and accountability in the judiciary
Cites US system as an example
UPSC Exam Angles
Constitutional provisions related to the judiciary (Articles 124-147)
Concept of judicial independence vs. judicial accountability
Role and evolution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Right to Information (RTI) Act and its applicability to the judiciary
Concept of 'open court' and live-streaming of court proceedings
Distinction between 'ratio decidendi' and 'obiter dicta'
Separation of powers and checks and balances
Visual Insights
Evolution of Judicial Transparency & PIL in India
This timeline illustrates key milestones in the development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and initiatives towards greater judicial transparency in India, providing context for the current PIL seeking public access to judges' oral observations.
The journey towards judicial transparency and accessibility in India has been gradual, marked by judicial activism through PILs and legislative efforts like RTI. The current PIL is a continuation of this evolution, aiming to further demystify judicial processes beyond written judgments.
- Late 1970sPioneering of PIL in India by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer, responding to social justice needs.
- 1980Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar: Landmark PIL establishing the right to speedy trial for undertrials.
- 1981S.P. Gupta v. Union of India: Relaxed 'locus standi' for PILs, allowing public-spirited citizens to approach courts.
- 2005Right to Information (RTI) Act enacted, increasing demands for transparency across all government organs, including the judiciary (with certain exemptions).
- 2018Supreme Court decides to live-stream constitutional bench proceedings, a significant step towards real-time judicial transparency.
- 2024Current PIL filed by Saket Gokhale, seeking a law for public access to judges' oral observations, pushing the boundaries of judicial transparency.
More Information
Background
The demand for greater transparency in the Indian judiciary has been a recurring theme, often balancing against the principle of judicial independence. Historically, court proceedings have been largely open to the public, but the detailed deliberations and oral observations of judges, which are not part of the final written judgment, have remained largely inaccessible.
The concept of 'open court' has primarily meant physical access to courtrooms. The evolution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) itself has been a tool for enhancing public accountability across various sectors, including the judiciary.
Latest Developments
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the recent Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking public access to judges' oral observations: 1. The PIL argues that making oral observations public would enhance judicial transparency and accountability. 2. Currently, all oral observations made by judges during court proceedings are explicitly covered under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 3. The concept of 'open court' proceedings in India primarily implies that the public has a right to physically attend court hearings. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 only
- B.1 and 2 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.2 and 3 only
Show Answer
Answer: C
Statement 1 is correct. The PIL explicitly states its aim is to enhance transparency and accountability by making judges' oral observations public. Statement 2 is incorrect. Oral observations are not explicitly covered under the RTI Act in a manner that mandates their public disclosure as a routine practice. While the judiciary is covered under RTI, the specific demand for oral observations to be made public requires a new law, as highlighted by the PIL. Statement 3 is correct. The 'open court' principle in India ensures that court proceedings are generally accessible to the public, allowing physical attendance, thereby promoting public confidence and scrutiny. It does not, however, automatically imply the recording and public dissemination of all oral deliberations or observations.
2. With reference to judicial independence and accountability in India, consider the following statements: 1. Judicial independence is primarily safeguarded by the security of tenure and fixed service conditions for judges, as enshrined in the Constitution. 2. The Supreme Court, under Article 145 of the Constitution, has the power to make rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court. 3. Oral observations made by judges during proceedings are considered part of the 'ratio decidendi' and are binding precedents for lower courts. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 2 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: C
Statement 1 is correct. Key aspects of judicial independence include security of tenure (judges can only be removed by a difficult impeachment process), fixed service conditions (salaries and allowances cannot be reduced to their disadvantage), and protection from criticism of their conduct (except during impeachment proceedings). Statement 2 is correct. Article 145 empowers the Supreme Court to make rules, with the approval of the President, for regulating its own practice and procedure, including rules for hearing appeals, constitutional cases, and other matters. Statement 3 is incorrect. Oral observations are generally considered 'obiter dicta' (things said by the way) and are not part of the 'ratio decidendi' (the reason for the decision), which forms the binding precedent. Only the 'ratio decidendi' of a judgment is binding on lower courts.
3. In the context of judicial transparency and public access to court proceedings in India, which of the following statements is/are correct? 1. The 'master of the roster' power, which determines the allocation of cases to benches, vests solely with the Chief Justice of India. 2. The Right to Information Act, 2005, explicitly includes the Supreme Court and High Courts within its ambit, subject to certain exemptions. 3. Live-streaming of court proceedings has been implemented in India to enhance public access, primarily for cases of constitutional and national importance. Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- A.1 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: D
Statement 1 is correct. The Supreme Court, in its own judgments (e.g., Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms vs. Union of India, 2017), has affirmed that the Chief Justice of India is the 'master of the roster' and has the exclusive power to allocate cases and constitute benches. Statement 2 is correct. The Supreme Court itself, in the 'CJI's office under RTI Act' case (2019), ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a 'public authority' under the RTI Act, thus bringing the Supreme Court and High Courts within its ambit, subject to privacy and other exemptions. Statement 3 is correct. The Supreme Court, in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), endorsed the live-streaming of court proceedings, particularly for cases of constitutional and national importance, to enhance transparency and public access. This has since been implemented in a phased manner by the Supreme Court and several High Courts.