Is It Viable or Constitutional-Mandate Trespassing?
Recently, the Law Department in Gujarat, on the recommendation of the Gujarat High Court, cracked the whip on 17 judges from various cadres in lower courts, ordering their retirement for un¬satisfactory performance. News reports suggest that these judges were issued notices to improve their perfortnance but their failure to heed to these warnings led to the government taking this drastic step.
While this action of the State gov¬ernment suggests that holding judges to performance standards is gaining momen¬tum, the existing system of performance evaluation for the lower judiciary is plagued with various problems. More worryingly, the higher judiciary in India is not subject to any sort of evaluation.
Assessing Judges, India and Abroad:
Lower court judges in India are evaluated through a system of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), which are completed by the senior-most judges of the lower court, and reviewed by the State High Court. But ACRs are neither filled up regularly nor is the evaluation process transparent. Concerns about this lack of due process have even reached the Supreme Court, which early this month summoned the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court to explain why a lower court judge was marked as "integrity doubtful" without material basis.
The idea for amending and improving existing methods for evaluating judges' performance was floated in 2013, when the Law Ministry acknowledged the need for a more scientific method of performance appraisal of judges. The Ministry also admitted that there was a lack of uniformity of judicial performance appraisal across States. But there have been no significant changes since these observations were made.
A recent survey for the legal commu¬nity for its views on judicial performance evaluation was done. Almost all the in dividuals surveyed said that there should be a system of performance appraisal of judges, particularly of the higher judici-ary. Most survey respondents believed that such appraisal would lead to greater accountability, transparency and better and efficient functioning of judges. This is an opportune moment to revise exist¬ing mechanisms and deliberate on the performance evaluation of judges at all levels of the judiciary.
What Does Other Matured Democ¬racies Practice?
US : Evaluating judges' perfor¬mance through periodic reviews and evaluations is a common practice across jurisdictions. Formally known as "Judi¬cial Performance Evaluation" (JPE), the system of periodic assessment of judicial performance originated in the U.S. Sitting judges were evaluated to inform voters aboLit a judge's performance record for 'retention elections'. Retention elections allow the public to vote for or against the continuing tenure of judges. JPEs became institutionalised over time, and are now regularly followed across the U.S., with most States incorporating provisions for evaluating judges in their constitutions.
EU: In the European Union, the Eu¬ropean Commission for the efficiency of justice conducts a periodic performance review of court systems of different mem¬ber states. This country-wise study collects data on various parameters, including the efficiency of courts in justice disposal, the costs per case, and the budget of courts. The outcome of this exercise is the "EU Justice Scoreboard", published annually, rating the working of justice systems across member states.
Studies of JPE programmes suggest that parameters for evaluating judicial performance may be qualitative as well as quantitative. These include the rate of disposal of cases by a judge, the qual¬ity of judgments and legal reasoning,
knowledge of the law, behaviour towards lawyers in court proceedings, independ¬ence and transparency. JPE programmes initially tend to use objective criteria to evaluate judges, eventually moving towards more qualitative criteria when systems have evolved sufficiently to re¬duce likelihood of bias and subjectivity in assessment processes.
Recently, the Law Department in Gujarat, on the recommendation of the Gujarat High Court, cracked the whip on 17 judges from various cadres in lower courts, ordering their retirement for un¬satisfactory performance. News reports suggest that these judges were issued notices to improve their perfortnance but their failure to heed to these warnings led to the government taking this drastic step.
While this action of the State gov¬ernment suggests that holding judges to performance standards is gaining momen¬tum, the existing system of performance evaluation for the lower judiciary is plagued with various problems. More worryingly, the higher judiciary in India is not subject to any sort of evaluation.
Assessing Judges, India and Abroad:
Lower court judges in India are evaluated through a system of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), which are completed by the senior-most judges of the lower court, and reviewed by the State High Court. But ACRs are neither filled up regularly nor is the evaluation process transparent. Concerns about this lack of due process have even reached the Supreme Court, which early this month summoned the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court to explain why a lower court judge was marked as "integrity doubtful" without material basis.
The idea for amending and improving existing methods for evaluating judges' performance was floated in 2013, when the Law Ministry acknowledged the need for a more scientific method of performance appraisal of judges. The Ministry also admitted that there was a lack of uniformity of judicial performance appraisal across States. But there have been no significant changes since these observations were made.
A recent survey for the legal commu¬nity for its views on judicial performance evaluation was done. Almost all the in dividuals surveyed said that there should be a system of performance appraisal of judges, particularly of the higher judici-ary. Most survey respondents believed that such appraisal would lead to greater accountability, transparency and better and efficient functioning of judges. This is an opportune moment to revise exist¬ing mechanisms and deliberate on the performance evaluation of judges at all levels of the judiciary.
What Does Other Matured Democ¬racies Practice?
US : Evaluating judges' perfor¬mance through periodic reviews and evaluations is a common practice across jurisdictions. Formally known as "Judi¬cial Performance Evaluation" (JPE), the system of periodic assessment of judicial performance originated in the U.S. Sitting judges were evaluated to inform voters aboLit a judge's performance record for 'retention elections'. Retention elections allow the public to vote for or against the continuing tenure of judges. JPEs became institutionalised over time, and are now regularly followed across the U.S., with most States incorporating provisions for evaluating judges in their constitutions.
EU: In the European Union, the Eu¬ropean Commission for the efficiency of justice conducts a periodic performance review of court systems of different mem¬ber states. This country-wise study collects data on various parameters, including the efficiency of courts in justice disposal, the costs per case, and the budget of courts. The outcome of this exercise is the "EU Justice Scoreboard", published annually, rating the working of justice systems across member states.
Studies of JPE programmes suggest that parameters for evaluating judicial performance may be qualitative as well as quantitative. These include the rate of disposal of cases by a judge, the qual¬ity of judgments and legal reasoning,
knowledge of the law, behaviour towards lawyers in court proceedings, independ¬ence and transparency. JPE programmes initially tend to use objective criteria to evaluate judges, eventually moving towards more qualitative criteria when systems have evolved sufficiently to re¬duce likelihood of bias and subjectivity in assessment processes.
