Conflict between the Supreme Court and High Courts (especially Allahabad High Court)

 

                            Jurisdictional Conflict

• The core issue: Conflict between the Supreme Court, High Courts (especially Allahabad High Court), and District Courts in India regarding jurisdiction and interference in appointments and administrative matters.
• The Allahabad High Court has issued a strong warning to the Supreme Court, stating: “Stay away from our domain; this is not your jurisdiction.”
• The background involves Supreme Court’s repeated interventions in District Court appointments which traditionally fall under the High Courts’ jurisdiction.
• The Supreme Court had previously interfered in:
  • Appointment ratios (e.g., 65:25:10 to 50:25:25, then reversed).
• Multiple High Courts including Punjab and Haryana, Kerala, and Allahabad have protested this interference, asserting their exclusive domain over District Court administration.
• A five-judge bench including CJI B.R. Gavai (soon to retire) heard these issues.
• It is highlighted that there is  a shift in the judiciary itself, where conflicts are now seen between different courts rather than between government and judiciary.
• There is a noted criticism within the judiciary, with Supreme Court judges doubting the decision-writing quality of some High Court judges, raising questions about the collegium system’s elevation process.

• Allahabad High Court’s Stand and the Concept of All India Judicial Service (AIJS)

  • Allahabad High Court emphasizes that District Courts fall under the High Courts’ jurisdiction and control, including appointments and service rules.
  • They argue that Supreme Court’s repeated interference disrupts this established domain.
  • Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing Allahabad High Court, questions why High Courts are being deprived of their constitutional powers and duties.
  • High Courts are considered apex courts at the state level, parallel in status to the Supreme Court, albeit the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal.
  • The terminology “Supreme Court” is critiqued; suggestion that it should be called “National Court” to avoid hierarchical misconceptions.
  • The conflict arises from Supreme Court’s desire to standardize judicial services nationwide, but this clashes with the diverse legal, social, and administrative realities across Indian states.
  • Example: Land laws and cow slaughter laws vary widely state-to-state, which complicates uniform judicial service rules.
  • The AIJS concept is alive but stalled due to bureaucratic and judicial delays.
  • Supreme Court judges acknowledge AIJS might give them some role in uniform service rule-making, but the High Courts resist ceding control.
  • The delay in establishing AIJS is the long-delayed like development of complex technologies.

  • Judicial Service Rules and Appointment Ratios: The Core of the Dispute

    • The promotion of District Judges is done through three modes:
      • Seniority-based promotion
      • Direct recruitment through competitive exams
      • Internal departmental exams
    • The appointment ratio has been a subject of frequent changes by the Supreme Court:
      • In 2002: 50% seniority, 25% direct recruitment, 25% departmental exams.
      • In 2010: Changed to 65% seniority, 25% direct recruitment, 10% departmental exams.
      • Later reverted or altered again, causing confusion.
    • Frequent changes in rules create instability and difficulty for judicial officers and administrators.
    • Supreme Court’s changing stance reflects internal disagreements and lack of a stable policy.
    • This lack of uniformity and constant tinkering is seen as problematic and disruptive.
    • Earlier, different Chief Justices or CJs (including D.Y. Chandrachud and Khanna J.) have altered the rules, indicating inconsistency.

    • Views from Various High Courts and the Issue of Inter-Court Relations

      • Senior advocate Maninder Acharya from Punjab and Haryana High Court states that the existing system is working well in these states, and no new quotas or changes are necessary.
      • Advocates from Kerala, Bihar, and Delhi also oppose Supreme Court’s interference, stating the High Courts can solve their problems internally.
      • The video stresses that this is a conflict among courts only, with no government involvement.
      • The Supreme Court has started making controversial rulings influencing powers of the President and Governors, which are accepted by governments but cause prolonged litigation.
      • However, the High Courts and District Courts are not obligated to blindly follow Supreme Court directions, especially in administrative matters.
      • The Supreme Court cannot remove High Court judges arbitrarily; removal requires impeachment (a constitutional process).
      • Despite this, interference continues, causing resentment.

      • Impact of Social Media and Transparency in Judiciary

        • It is noted that judicial conflicts and comments are now publicly visible due to social media, recorded hearings, and increased transparency.
        • Earlier, such internal disagreements were less visible; now, they are widely discussed and criticized.
        • This has led to increased public scrutiny and commentary on judicial conduct and decisions.
        • The Supreme Court claims it is not stripping High Courts of power but aiming for uniformity.
        • High Courts have responded firmly that the Supreme Court’s approach is overreach.
        • The ongoing dispute is expected to intensify with no immediate resolution in sight.