Court, heal thyself before crying foul

One of India's largest and oldest constitutional courts, Allahabad High Court, locked horns with the Supreme Court this week, as it urged the latter to adopt a 'hands-off' approach to framing uniform service rules for the subordinate judiciary. The pushback came after a 5-judge constitution bench led by CJI B R Gavai questioned whether broad guidelines were needed for consistency over who should decide promotions and recruitment for the lower judiciary - while assuring that high courts' administrative powers would remain intact. Citing Article 227, Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the lower court, argued that service conditions vary across states, and that each high court is best placed to frame its own rules.

Tensions have been brewing between the two courts, with the apex court repeatedly pulling up the high court for crippling delays in case disposal. Earlier this year, it criticised it for observations reflecting a disturbingly insensitive outlook towards women in sexual harassment cases. The Allahabad court happens to lead in vacancies and backlog - 81 of 160 sanctioned judges' posts lying vacant, and 11,76,229 cases pending. Its subordinate courts fare no better, burdened with over 81.9 lakh pending cases and 1,002 judicial vacancies out of a sanctioned strength of 3,700.

A spat between two courts is hardly edifying. But the apex court's concerns are not misplaced. Judicial autonomy cannot become a shield for institutional complacency. Devolution of power is always welcome. But unless the Allahabad High Court puts its house in order, its protests ring hollow. Complaining about oversight without addressing glaring inefficiencies is being a dog in the manger that does little for justice, and even less for public faith in the system.