New Delhi, July 15 (IANS) In an exclusive interview with IANS, former Supreme Court judge Justice (retired) Sanjay Kishan Kaul shares his views on some of the most pressing issues concerning India’s judiciary.

From long-pending vacancies and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) controversy to digitisation, political interference, and societal changes, Justice Kaul outlines the systemic challenges and possible pathways to reform.

Interview excerpts:

IANS: What is the most pressing issue in India’s judicial system today?

Justice (retd) Sanjay Kishan Kaul: The biggest challenge is the issue of pendency. The best way to deal with this is by appointing judges in adequate numbers. We often fail to fill judicial vacancies on time. In the High Courts, nearly one-third of the positions remain vacant, and the numbers are only growing. While this is not an issue in the Supreme Court, the lower courts face the same problem.

IANS: What are your thoughts on the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)?

Justice (retd) Sanjay Kishan Kaul: Parliament brought in the NJAC, but the Supreme Court struck it down. I feel the government hasn’t yet come to terms with that. A timeline was laid down for appointments — I was a part of that bench, along with Justice Bobde and Justice Suryakant — but unfortunately, it has not been followed. The matter hasn’t even come up for hearing in the past 1.5 years.

IANS: Do you think the Modi government has been cooperative in judicial appointments?

Justice (retd) Sanjay Kishan Kaul: There is a bit of a problem. High Courts often hesitate to send new names unless previously recommended ones are cleared. From the government’s side, I disagree with their approach — they clear some names and sit on others, affecting seniority. As a result, some candidates have even withdrawn. If this continues, it will become difficult to recommend good lawyers as judges. They may hesitate to give their consent.

IANS: What about funding and infrastructure in the judiciary?

Justice (retd) Sanjay Kishan Kaul: While the Centre does release funds, but if funds are not utilised on time, the funds lapse. The situation varies — some states have excellent infrastructure, others are lagging. The process needs to be simplified, but simplification alone won’t help if a judge is handling 100 cases daily. Digitisation helps, but not everyone can use it effectively, and many places lack the infrastructure.

IANS: Many political parties often target the judiciary in public debates. Does this impact the working of the judicial system?

Justice (retd) Sanjay Kishan Kaul: Yes, it creates issues, especially in the Supreme Court. Political disagreements must be resolved through political means — courts are not the place for political battles. Sometimes, legal ramifications arise, and a large number of people get involved, making it more complex. The court must decide what it should and should not hear. Institutions like the Election Commission exist for a reason — the court should intervene only on clear legal grounds. The Supreme Court is not meant to frame policies or do the work of other constitutional bodies. We need to maintain a balance.

IANS: What is your reaction to the murder of tennis player Radhika Yadav?

Justice (retd) Sanjay Kishan Kaul: It sends a very negative message. Women’s empowerment grows with societal development — they are now more educated and independent. However, some in the older generation are still not willing to accept this. When differences arise over a woman’s freedom and escalate to violence, it reflects a failure of character. Our society clearly has some deep-rooted problems — people today lack the tolerance to listen. We must aim for social change. Women will live life on their own terms, not on someone else’s.

IANS: Your views on the controversy involving Justice Yashwant Varma?

Justice (retd) Sanjay Kishan Kaul: We need to understand the process. The report submitted was a fact-finding report to assist the Chief Justice — there was no cross-examination involved. If the Chief Justice felt the material warranted it, an investigation should have followed. There are many unanswered questions — how much cash was involved, whose money it was, what the fire department did, and whether a proper ‘panchnama’ was made. In an impeachment process, the government plays no direct role — MPs move the motion, and a committee is formed. But in this case, a proper FIR and investigation were necessary to reach the truth. A fact-finding report alone is not sufficient for impeachment. The Chief Justice still has the power to order an inquiry.

IANS: How do you view digitisation and virtual hearings in the judicial system?

Justice (retd) Sanjay Kishan Kaul: Digitisation is a good system, but it lacks uniform implementation. Some states have adopted it more than others. It simplifies the process and was especially helpful during the COVID-19 pandemic. Even several Chief Justices have said that courts should continue to function in virtual mode. In a city like Delhi, with its traffic issues and numerous tribunals, virtual hearings make access to justice more efficient.

–IANS

sas/dan