In
today’s The Hindu, V. Venketasan has written a lead page article referring to the
appointment of Justice Cyriac Joseph to the National Human Rights Commission.
He has raised some larger issues on appointment policy and dealing with dissents
in the selection bodies. One of the
objections in appointing retired Justice Joseph is his poor performance tally
in judgment writing. 7 judgments in 3.5 years is the figures in report card, an abysmal
performance in authoring judgments. However, reaching such a conclusion might not be fair unless track record of his fellow judges are
evaluated and verifying whether there are any compelling institutional reasons
for the humble turn out of judgments. Number of judgments delivered is just one
indicator, relevant nevertheless.
The
issues highlighted by Venketasan point to a critical issue of performance
evaluation of judges. Evaluating judges’ performance is a complex task and
raises multiple issues and call for balancing different claims. However
delicate and polygonal the task is, it is important for the upkeep of the
integrity and efficiency of the institution. In India, discussions about
judicial performance stumble on two major roadblocks; absence of collectively
accepted norms to evaluate the performance of judges and absence of specific
data. These two are interconnected as deficiency of norms affects
generation of relevant data.
Performance
evaluation of judges has to be located in the larger canvass of performance of
the judiciary which include multiple referral points like
1. Judges
a. Selection
b. Promotion
c. Accountability
d. Disciplinary
process
2.
Courts
a. Infrastructure
b. Administrative
support
c. Case
management
d. Financial
management
3.
Government/legislative involvement
a. Budgetary
allocation
b. Work
environment
c. Reforms
in law
d. Policy
formation
e. Law
and order situation
f. Police
reforms
g. Governance
attributes
4.
Public perception
a. Trust
b. Confidence
Isolated
performance evaluation of judges solely based on disposal rate or selected few aspects may not bring out the correct assessment as all the above aspects are
interconnected. Discussions about performance evaluation of judges usually puts
the judges in the defensive. It definitely raises a very relevant concern,
independence of judges and judiciary as an institution.
Discourses
on judicial reforms therefore need to start from evaluating judiciary as an
institution and performance of judges within it. This will give clear
indication as to what ails justice dispensation.
Developing evaluating norms, tools and model for analysis therefore is the central requirement. This also raises a complexity that analysis has to be one that
integrates quality aspects as well. It may be relatively easy to develop
quantitative tools of assessment and develop model for evaluation. Weaving-in
qualitative concerns raises major challenge.
Nations have developed norms and standards for evaluating judiciary
already. USA has detailed laid out indicators to assess judges and judiciary.
Some of the Scandinavian countries have also developed these standards. These sure
will indicate the broad spectrum of standards but India needs homegrown
yardsticks as the experiences of the nations differ from others.
