New Delhi, November 12
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Saturday said the structure of the legal profession was “feudal, patriarchal and not accommodating of women” and there was a need for a democratised and merit-based process for entry of more women and marginalised sections of society.
Justice Chandrachud, who took charge as the CJI on Wednesday, said there were numerous challenges before the judiciary and first among these was of expectation as every social and legal matter and a large number of political issues came within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
‘Not accommodating of women’
Says structure of the profession across India is feudal and not accommodating of womenWants proceedings of high courts and the district judiciary also to be live-streamed
“The structure of the legal profession even today across India is feudal, patriarchal and not accommodating of women,” the CJI, who is known for expressing candid views, said at a summit.
“So when we talk of having more women in the judiciary, it’s equally necessary for us to lay building blocks for the future by creating access to women now. The first step is entering the chambers of senior lawyers, which is an old boys’ club,” he said.
Danger of being opaque
One of the greatest dangers in a constitutional democracy is the danger of being opaque. When you open up your process, you generate a degree of accountability. —CJI DY Chandrachud
“How do you gain access to chambers by tapping your connections? Until we have a democratised and merit-based access to the entry point in the legal profession, we will not have more women and will not have more people belonging to marginalised sections,” he said.
He said the live-streaming of court proceedings was a new experiment that gave an insight into what technology could do to transform the legal system and said proceedings of high courts and the district judiciary should also be live-streamed.
“One of the greatest dangers in a constitutional democracy is the danger of being opaque. When you open up your process, you generate a degree of accountability, transparency and generate a sense of responsiveness to the needs of the citizens,” he said.
“When I speak of live-streaming, I do not speak of live-streaming on big ticket cases. We need to live-stream the proceedings of the high courts and also of the district judiciary because the interface of the common citizen is first and foremost with the district judiciary,” the CJI said.
On the issue of comparison between the Indian Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court, CJI Chandrachud said it was important not to equate the apex court here with that of other developed countries because ”we have a uniquely Indian structure for our institutions”.
“When you compare us with the US Supreme Court, which hears a total of over 180 cases a year or the UK Supreme Court, which hears 85 cases a year, we have a Supreme Court where every Judge hears about 75 to 80 cases on Monday and Friday, and 30 to 40 cases on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. That gives you the reach of the work which the Supreme Court does,” the CJI said.
”So the question is should an SC Judge in which the country has invested so much be dealing with small cases like pension and maintenance. My answer is yes because that is indeed the role of the SC,” he said.
The CJI said judges often come across as old-fashioned because of black gowns and the imposing regalia.
