Office of CJI: Need of a fixed tenure as complicated issues warrant long-term approach

The President Droupadi Murmu issued the warrant of appointment to Justice DY Chandrachud as the 50th Chief Justice of India (CJI). The country will have 50 CJIs in its 75 years of independence. This points towards the glaring fact that the CJIs have had short tenures. While Justice Chandrachud in recent times will have one of the longest tenures as the CJI, the tenure of the sitting CJI Lalit is only 74 days. It is thus of prime importance that the tenure of CJI and the need to have a fixed tenure be discussed seriously.

The CJI is the administrative head of the Supreme Court (SC) and also the leader of the Indian judiciary having integrated judiciary with the Supreme Court at the apex. Till recent times, the position of the CJI was ambiguous and often at times the CJI was described as primus inter pares, i.e., first among equals. While there is no denying that on the judicial side, all the judges of the SC including the CJI are on the same footing, the position is not the same given the totality of powers and responsibilities.

CJI holds a key role

The SC in Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India authoritatively laid down that the CJI is not just primus inter pares but rather has a unique and privileged position as the ‘master of the roster’. He fixes the roster of the benches, thereby deciding which judge will hear the case. This is of seminal importance in the context of our SC which does not sit en banc and sits in different benches speaking in different voices, i.e., a polyvocal court. This has the potential to affect the outcome of cases. Further, the CJI plays a key role in the appointments of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts in respect of collegium meetings, its sitting and procedure. CJI also holds a key role in the interaction of the judiciary with other branches. The CJI represents the judiciary in interaction with other branches.

Short tenure of CJI – Some examples

Such an important constitutional institution unfortunately has not been vested with a fixed term. As per the convention and the procedure, the senior most judge of the Supreme Court is appointed as the CJI unless there are extreme and cogent reasons for not following the same. Given there is an age limit of 65 years set by the constitution, most of the judges have a year or so of the tenure left by the time they are the senior most judge of the SC to be appointed as the CJI.

Notably, the CJI with the shortest tenure was CJI KN Singh in 1991 with just 17 days whereas the longest-serving CJI was Justice YV Chandrachud who held office for 7 years. In recent times, Justice BV Nagarathna who is to become CJI in 2027 will have a tenure of just over a month, one of the shortest, whereas Justice BR Gavai slated to be CJI in 2025 will have a tenure of about 6 months whereas Justice Vikram Nath will have about 7 months in the office in 2027.

The Law Commission of India had recommended fixed tenure for the CJI. This was also reiterated recently by the former AG KK Venugopal who advocated for a fixed term of 3 years. Surprisingly, the Supreme Court itself through various judicial pronouncements has resulted in fixed tenure for various important positions such as the DGP, Director of the CBI etc.

However, the same has not been fructified for the CJI. Reforms initiated by the CJIs are not taken to their logical conclusion due to their short tenure. Former CJI NV Ramana could not appropriately push for infrastructure of courts, despite proposals in minds, given his short tenure while former CJI P. Sathashivam with a tenure of about 9 months stated the need for a fixed tenure. Similar sentiments have also been iterated by various former CJIs, most recently by Justice SA Bobde.

When a new CJI enters the office, the change in priorities is clearly reflected. For instance, during the tenure of Justice Khehar as the CJI, the SC listed and heard at the length the issue of AIJS (All India Judicial Service). However, the same issue never got due attention since his retirement.

The transition to the office of the CJI requires some time frame to clearly identify the institutional issues plaguing the judiciary of the country. Further, a CJI does not remain in office for long to resolve more complicated issues which warrants a long-term approach.

Resultantly, one of the most important offices in the country functions in an ad-hoc manner without any long-term vision or planning. This affects, ultimately, the justice delivery to citizenry at large. This is also antithetical to our constitutional ideals which focus more on creating institutions than vesting the authority to individual(s). It is imperative that the office of the CJI is better institutionalized to provide for a long-term institutionalized approach to judicial issues in the country.

Reasons for no reform

At this stage, one may simply ask why the reform has not taken place when the issue is pressing and the problem is quite evident. The answer to this, however, is far from simple.

The appointment to the higher judiciary is a collaborative exercise between the collegium and the executive, involving tussle at times. There is thus a long-drawn process regarding the appointment and tenure of the office of judges of the higher judiciary including the CJI without much clarity. Surprisingly, the constitutional positions including that of the CJI are filled without a constitutional body.

There is a need for various branches to come together to agree on a common constitutional framework for the appointment of judges including the issue of fixed tenure of the CJI. The same should also be considered with respect to the office of the Chief Justices of the High Courts who hold a similar position in states. A welcome move, albeit with its own flaws, was introduced in the form of NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) which was later struck down by the SC. A discussion on similar lines need to take place in the present scenario for more meaningful justice delivery in the country.

This would go a long way in ensuring that the CJIs are able to take meaningful steps during their tenure and provide more stable, meaningful, and visionary leadership to the judiciary.

The author is an advocate at the Allahabad High Court and B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) graduate of NLSIU Bangalore. The views expressed are personal. 

Read all the Latest News , Trending News ,  Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook , Twitter and Instagram .