3 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Judging in the age of populism
It is at this juncture that Lord Reed's inquiry and recommendations assume particular significance. Firstly, he recommends that while a court 'has to be fearless in defending our constitutional values, it also has to exercise judgement and display a sensitivity towards the other institutions of the state, and towards public opinion, if it is to avoid being perceived as a political actor'. Secondly, he recommends judgements be measured and neutral, thereby demonstrating they are based on law and exercise of legal expertise and experience and not on personal convictions. Thirdly, he stresses on the importance of public outreach in the form of livestreaming of proceedings, maintaining a hands-on and active communication team and establishing educational schemes to reach out to pupils at schools. Lord Reed's prescriptions are valuable and create avenues for the public to interact with the judiciary.
To its credit, the Indian judiciary has been making efforts to make justice accessible. The e-Courts Project represents one of the largest judicial digitisation initiatives by sheer scale, connecting 18,735 district and subordinate courts. The Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software (SUVAS), launched in 2019, has translated thousands of Supreme Court judgments into multiple vernacular languages using artificial intelligence. Yet more needs to be done. India's technological achievements through e-courts and SUVAS must be complemented with sustained and planned public outreach.
The judiciary also needs dedicated teams who can help judges craft accessible language, provide background briefings to journalists, and manage public messaging during controversial decisions. Perhaps most critically, the Indian judiciary must move beyond its often-adversarial relationship with parliament and towards structured dialogue.
While we must strive to better adopt Lord Reed's recommendations to our unique needs, we must be mindful that they are technocratic in nature and may not address the underlying causes of the trust deficit. Courts in developed nations face the inevitable backlash of decades of judicial enforcement of market discipline and acculturation.
On the other hand, our problems run much deeper as our judiciary faces urgent systemic issues in the form of corruption and an appointment system that has become a lightning rod. However, the needed reform must ensure independence from executive interference.
Saai Sudharsan Sathiyamoorthy | Advocate, Madras High Court
(Views are personal)
(saaisudharsans@
