Professional Documents
Culture Documents
01 2 PDF
01 2 PDF
3. This requires a certain ability to theorise and conceptualise. Law professors are academically
trained to theorise and conceptualise. Industrious law professors improve upon this training,
through years of painstaking research and teaching in their specialised domains, often employing
empirical and interdisciplinary tools. These well developed and nuanced theorising and
conceptualising abilities have the potential of raising the bar of legal reasoning up by several
notches.
4. Regrettably, 63 long years after the Constitution was adopted, both the judiciary and the
executive have consistently ignored this clear constitutional mandate. In the history of the Indian
Republic, never ever has a distinguished jurist, i.e. a law professor, been appointed as a judge
of the Supreme Court, although India has produced some outstanding law professors worthy of
the distinguished jurist tag. In last 63 years, all appointments to the Court have been made
from the first eligible category i.e. High Court judges, barring four instances, where practising
lawyers (the second category) were directly appointed as Supreme Court judges
Reforms
The crucial need , therefore, is to evolve objective criteria to assess a candidate and make
appointments on the basis of assessments against such stated criteria.
We may usefully refer to the system adopted by the Judicial Appointments Commission in the United
Kingdom to assess candidates.
Other reforms
1.
2.
3.
4.
UK
The JAC assesses candidates against five merit criteria:
1. Intellectual capacity: Nominated candidates ought to demonstrate (a) a high level of expertise in
chosen areas or profession with the (b) ability to quickly absorb and analyse information. They should
have (c) appropriate knowledge of the law and its underlying principles or the ability to acquire this
knowledge where necessary.
2. Personal qualities: ranging from (a) integrity and independence of mind, (b) sound judgment, (c)
decisiveness, (d) objectivity, (e) ability and willingness to learn and develop professionally and (f)
ability to work constructively with others.
3. An ability to understand and deal fairly: This includes (a) the ability to treat everyone with respect
and sensitivity whatever their background and (b) willingness to listen with patience and courtesy.
4. Authority and communication skills: The nominated person is expected to have (a) the ability to
explain the procedure and any decisions reached clearly and succinctly to all those involved with the
further (b) ability to inspire respect and confidence and (c) maintain authority when challenged.
5. Efficiency: The ability to work at speed and under pressure and the ability to organise time
effectively and produce clear reasoned judgments expeditiously.
US
The public senate hearings for appointments of judges to superior courts in the U.S. are another
example of transparency. We may not find the U.S. system implementable as it is; but nothing prevents
us from incorporating the key principles of transparency, accountability and citizen participation
underlying the U.S. system for selection of judges.