District Courts

Judge Aditi Sharma resigned on July 29 after the judge against whom she raised allegations of harassment was greenlit by the Collegium for elevation. We provide a brief recall of a story that must be remembered.

As the Supreme Court recalls its controversial strictures against Allahabad HC judge, one story is put to rest. However, the repeating issue of overlordism and undignified criticism by higher court judges remains an issue far from resolved, with domino implications on our entire judicial system.

Tackling the perils of digital misogyny head on, the court’s decision acknowledges that gendered-abusive words, such as ‘r***i’, are a way to reassert male dominance.

The release of a convict by the Allahabad HC last month after 48 years of entangled criminal proceedings represented a broader crisis - the inherent complexity of judicial proceedings in India, and the difficulty of any one actor, including our subordinate court judges, in dictating the time and pace of cases. Would introducing case administrators in our courts, similar to Canada, the US and UK, which would free up the workload of subordinate court judges, be the saving grace?

The mandatory imposition of a three year mandatory practice in the Court’s recent All India Judges Association case exacerbates women’s already precarious position in India’s legal and judicial fraternity.

With just over 25,000 judges for 1.4 billion, India’s overburdened judicial system could learn from Germany how deep collaboration between courts and AI developers could improve case management and pattern analysis

Data dictates that just over 11 percent of our High Court judges are women, several states have only one woman on the bench. The Supreme Court’s seven years minimum ‘continuous practice’ requirement for district judge appointments, which overlooks the fallouts of invisible care work by women lawyers in domestic set-ups, may be one of the reasons. On several broader aspects, the legal community must introspect.

The nation-wide outrage against the Pune Porsche case, specifically, the conditions on which bail was granted to the 17-year-old, may appear warranted. Yet, an examination of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 suggests these conditions are in line with safeguarding minors while holding accountable those who influenced their actions.