By TwoCircles.net Staff Reporter,
Chennai: Raising the pitch for reservation to backward classes in the higher judiciary, the Madras High Court sitting judge D. Hari Paranthaman has demanded constitutional amendments saying “it will ensure social justice”.
He said this while speaking in the seminar on “Social Justice in the Judicial Appointments” organised by the National Lawyers Network (NLN) at Chennai on Friday.
“Our constitution was amended more than hundred times. To ensure the social justice in the higher judiciary, it is a need of the hour to amend the constitution and pave way for reservation in higher judiciary”, Justice Paranthaman said during his speech.
“In the 150 years of judicial history of Madras high court, it accommodated only six judges belonging to Dalit community whereas in the present strength of Madras high court, it does not have a single judge from Muslim community. In such a situation, it is unavoidable to raise the question about the social justice,” he pointed out.
He further made a point that after the retirement of judges in 2010, there was no room for the Dalit judges in the Supreme Court and that after Independence the Supreme Court accommodated only four judges belonging to the Dalit community.
He said social justice cannot be achieved in the judiciary unless and until the constitution is amended or reservation in the higher judiciary will be a distant dream.
Sighting Munda committee’s report, he said it had concluded that only a firm policy on reservation can remedy the problem of under representation of backward classes in the higher judiciary.
He further noted that the said committee was headed by Kariya Munda, a BJP MP from Jharkhand who had said that since the report was data-based, none could object to its findings.
He suggested conducting competitive examinations for the selection of judges in the High Courts and the Supreme Court on the line of IAS and IPS examinations. “The proportionate reservation for all communities should also be provided in this examination and selection mode”, he advised.
“The struggle to make the judiciary sensitive to social aspirations is to continue. And the constitution should be amended to ensure the social justice in the higher judiciary”, Justice Paranthaman concluded.
He is not the first to raise voice for reservation in higher judiciary but two decades before was former President of India K.R. Narayanan and former Supreme Court judge A.S. Anand had suggested of the same.
Retired Chief Justice of India P. Sathasivam too had remarked in 2013 that there should be reservation for members of the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and the other backward classes in the Supreme Court and high court judges’ posts.
Munda Committee’s recommendations
In 2000, the Munda Committee consisting of 20 Lok Sabha members and 10 Rajya Sabha members was constituted for the Welfare of SCs and STs and in the report it had recommended for reservation in higher judiciary.
As on the information available up to May 1, 1998, the committee was surprised to find that out of 481 High Court Judges; only 15 belonged to a Scheduled Caste and five to a Scheduled Tribe. “The representation of SCs and STs in the judgeship of the Supreme Court was nil on that date in spite of the fact that some suitable, eligible and well-qualified S.C./S.T. candidates were available in the consideration zone.
This picture with regard to SC and ST representation, both on the administrative and judicial side, forced the committee to use harsh language. It said: “Judges take oath that they uphold the Constitution and the laws. But the Supreme Court, and a few High Courts, by claiming power above the Constitution, practice untouchability and are disobeying the Constitution with regard to Article 16(4) and 16(4)(A)”.
Article 16 (4) enables the state to make provision for the reservation in appointments or posts in favour of any backward class that is not adequately represented in the services under the state. The committee also questioned the exclusion of the judicial wing from the definition of the state in Article 12.
It recommended that the government make reservation for SCs and STs in the matter of appointments of High Court and Supreme Court judges, if need be, by amending the Constitution.
It also wondered how Article 15(4) could not apply to the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Article 15(4) enables the State to make any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the SCs and STs.
“The administration of law and justice is intimately linked with the social philosophy of the judiciary and the social philosophy cannot be entirely separated from the social origins of those who dispense justice,” the report had quoted.