Why Justice Cyriac Joseph does not deserve a post retirement post

While Justice Cyriac Joseph was about to retire as Supreme Court judge, a good friend of mine in the Supreme Court brought to my notice an interesting fact – that Justice Joseph  was leaving without delivering any judgment. My friend rued that he might be the first judge to leave the Supreme Court without delivering a judgment or very less number of judgments. I decided to dig into this and did a comprehensive study of how many judgments Justice Joseph had delivered. I also made a comparative analysis of his fellow judges lest the study be criticised as a window to give vent to personal vendetta. This was story behind the genesis of the ‘Judges Scorecard’ column (now Verdictum) in Bar & Bench. If not for the Contempt law, the title of the column would have remained ‘Judges Scorecard’.

I analysed the tenure of as many as forty two judges and the data corresponding to their performance. Justice Joseph had penned down only six judgments in 1300 days during his tenure of roughly four years. Among these six, one judgment was delivered in 2010, two judgments in 2011 and three in 2013 few days prior to his retirement. I had  also obtained data on the number of days served and the number of judgments delivered by  the other Judges (both retired and still serving) in the last three and half years to obtain some comparative data.

I quote from the report published in Bar & Bench, “Comparing Justice Joseph`s performance with his fellow judges, there seems to be a huge difference in number of judgments delivered. During Justice Joseph`s tenure, judges including Justice S. H. Kapadia, Justice Altamas Kabir, Justice Dalveer Bhandari, Justice D. K. Jain, Justice P. Sathasivam etc. have penned down more than sixty judgments each. Furthermore, there is a marked difference, when compared to judges like Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice S.B. Sinha, who have penned down as many as 426 and 336 judgments respectively. Although the number of judgments written by a judge cannot be seen as an exhaustive benchmark for their performance, it does provide certain indications.” 

Few months later, I came across the news that Justice Joseph was being appointed as the Chairman of Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), New Delhi. I found this to be a hilarious joke as Justice Joseph was coming as a replacement for Justice S. B. Sinha. Justice Sinha during his judgeship was known for being a workaholic while Justice Joseph was infamous for being a habitual laggard. A Bar & Bench reader raised an important question in the story relating to Justice Joseph’s appointment, which I quote below:

“Who will write the judgments now?” The other comments in the story itself are indicative of Justice Joseph’s work style.

In early March, Economic Times reported that the Centre had asked the Chief Justice to take into account a report from an "agency" before taking a final decision on Justice Joseph’s appointment to the TDSAT. The report had not raised any issues relating to integrity; but it had observations on the former judge's "style of functioning". In particular, the report had commented on alleged delays in delivering verdicts.  It is also interesting to note that due the ambiguity prevailing over Cyriac Joseph’s Chairmanship, TDSAT had been rendered defunct with the retirement of its only serving member, P.K. Rastogi. How the tribunal will fare with Cyriac Joseph at its helm is anybody’s guess. A few days back, Indian Express reported that, “Since the UPA government's move to appoint former Supreme Court Judge Cyriac Joseph as chairman of the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has come a cropper apparently because of an adverse report by an intelligence agency, the government is now learnt to be planning to make him a member of the National Human Rights Commission”.   

How a Judge found unfit for the post of TDSAT chairman owing to his working style is fit for another post at National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is inexplicable. Justice Joseph’s record clearly indicates that he has done no substantial work at the Supreme Court of India. The figures indicated in the Judges Scorecard report and the fact that he heard Mulayam Singh’s disproportionate assets case for three years and left without delivering a judgment testifies that. Appointment of Justice Joseph to any judicial or quasi judicial post is nothing short of outrageous, especially during times when the propriety of post retirement posts and benefits for Supreme Court judges are being fiercely debated. At a time when our justice dispensation system is breaking under the burden of backlogs, Justice Joseph has set the wrong example by his lacklustre show at the Apex Court.

He, therefore, does not deserve to be appointed to another post and be allowed to enjoy all the luxuries that accompany it and thereby waste the taxpayers’ money. If the government does not want the Tribunals and the Commissions to be rendered defunct, appointment of Justice Joseph should be reconsidered.

Legal Education in India

Legal education in India hitherto has been notionally perceived as a domain integrally gelled with the judicial establishment associated with its 'colonial legacy’ tag though there has been a slow paradigmatic shift in the pedagogy in the last decade or two.

The post-47 Indian state’s obsession with 'modernity' and 'development' has unmistakably prioritized science, technology and medicine as the frontier areas of pedagogic discourse and the middle class in India has been largely hooked on this 'mantra'... Even though the Nehruvian phase witnessed innovative impetus for promotion of liberal ‘science’ and humanities given his ideological and professional background, his advocacy of ‘scientific temper’ unquestionably privileged science as ‘the’ area of study and research per se
Without going for sweeping generalization, it still can be argued that the trend has pitiably pushed study and research on philosophy, ethics, history, law and governance etc. almost to the margin, and the trend of peripherialisation perhaps reached its logical climax with the call of ‘end of ideology/history’ coinciding with the advent of globalization.

It is in this historical trajectory, one needs to think how academics in these domains continues to be seen with low priority in terms of career choices, popular appeal and an unfortunate lack of decisive state intervention ‘to remedy’ the structural anomalies visibly afflicting these areas. The reality is: India’s journey of ‘modernity’ will remain utterly hollow and sham in the absence of ‘empowerment’ of these intellectual enterprises.

The institutional legitimacy of law schools can really scale hegemonic heights when it gets transformed as a site not for learning the ‘black letters of law’ but instead becomes platforms to ‘cultivate critical thinkers, social reformers and creative leaders free to pursue an array of career options’. Here lies the undeniable justification for roping in legal academics proportionately in the regulatory body for legal education for policy prescriptions and norms on legal education, than mindlessly making it an outfit or a remote control of Bar Council of India (BCI).

Isn’t it that ‘babudom’ wherever they are, shouldn’t be an irritant on our often proclaimed march to match global excellence? Otherwise perhaps, one wonders, the fond conviction (?) of PM In branding National Law Universities (NLUs) “islands of excellence amidst a sea of institutionalized mediocrity” will remain a myth.

In this light, the ongoing hullabaloo over the Bar Council of India’s ongoing protest over divestiture of their control over legal education in India via the proposed Higher Education and Research Bill assumes widespread significance.

The proposed Bill is a radical departure from the existing, non-performing, multiple regulatory system to a decentralised, disclosure-based, self-regulating arrangement. The Bill envisages the legal academia to call the shots in administration of legal education in the country instead of the bureaucracy, in whose hands the power is vested presently. It lays greater emphasis on research promotion and innovation in higher education. It will enable the vice-chancellors of various law universities to lead and coordinate ample legal research in their institutions rather than scurrying around places in search of funds from different government sources. A standard setting for competitive excellence, a necessary component for any kind of global education services, is now often neglected and fragmented. Apart from facilitating a holistic hassle-free education, the Bill also provides for norm-based and performance-based distribution of grants, without distinction between Central and State Universities, which is a welcome thing in the context of globalisation and knowledge-based economy, now in place. The Bill seeks to promote autonomy of higher education institutions and universities for free pursuit of knowledge and innovation. It will promote and coordinate higher education and research through ensuring autonomy of universities, proposing an interdisciplinary framework for law students to have a wider variety of choices in the pursuit of learning, encouraging good practices in universities and promoting research and innovation in higher educational institutions.

The Bar Council of India has been constantly opposing the Ministry of Human Resources Development’s alleged attempt to usurp its regulation of legal education in the country through its proposed Bill. But has the BCI really done anything worth noticing in the sphere of legal education in about half a century, throughout which it has called all the shots?

As far as legal competence is concerned, the Advocates Act of 1961 lays down that the BCI will regulate legal education in consultation with the Universities in India regulating such education. History suggests that nothing of this sort has happened, which is backed by the fact that only one member of the BCI’s legal education committee is a full time academic.

That legal academicians have been constantly snubbed by BCI members and officers when it comes to critical inputs on the administration of legal education in the country is indeed unfortunate. It is denigratory to the role that legal academics have played and continue to play in legal education today. The stranglehold of the Bar Council on legal education is one of the many reasons why law schools in India have remained vocational institutions which churn out reasonably competent lawyers, however fail miserably when it comes to being places of genuine legal scholarship. The faculty at prominent national law schools, legal academicians that they are, in the true sense of the word, have a fairly good idea of the structural reforms that would be required to make law universities places of academic and co-curricular excellence.

As Shamnad Basheer in his column puts it,” the BCI would do well to keep in mind that the purpose of law schools is not to merely mass-produce technically competent lawyers ready to serve the bar. Rather, it is to cultivate critical thinkers, social reformers and creative leaders free to pursue an array of career options. Law schools must therefore be encouraged to experiment with their curricula and conceptualise courses that foster critical and creative thinking beyond the black letters of the law."

Book Review: The Ultimate Guide to the Judicial Services Examination 2013 for all States

By Safi Mohan

I am very glad to inform that I thoroughly examined the 1^st edition of M.A Rashid’s The Ultimate Guide to the Judicial Services Examination 2013 for all States. This book covers 26 subjects and 15 Model Question papers with answer key. This is a useful book for all law students in India, those who are seriously preparing for law examinations, especially Judicial Services, IAS, Law officers in banks and UGC-NET-JRF examinations. Systematic arrangements of subjects, latest case laws, and recent amendments of different Statutes are the highlights of the present work. It is recommended to use recent bare acts along with it. Considering the content and size of the book it is moderately priced and useful for all law teachers and law students and a worthy addition for all law libraries in India. I admire and congratulate the author and the publishers for their sincere efforts and hopefully expecting the 2^nd edition in the next year.

Safi Mohan M.R

Assistant Professor in Law

Govt. Law College, Kozhikode.

NUALS responds to Kerala Government’s queries on the Petition alleging horse-trading for the post of VC

Kerala Government had sought an explanation from the National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Cochin regarding a petition submitted by students,parents and alumni alleging horse-trading and political indulgences taking place for the post of Vice-Chancellor at NUALS.

NUALS, through its Registrar, in response to the Petition has submitted an explanation to the Higher Education Department. The explanation mentions that the University has already initiated the steps to constitute a Search Committee to appoint the new Vice-Chancellor in September 2012 and the process is reportedly in progress. The explanation states that apart from this, the University has nothing to do with the appointment of the new Vice-Chancellor.

Further through the Petition, it was also brought to the attention of the Chancellor and Pro Chancellor that the University had failed to appoint a permanent Registrar and the post of Finance Officer was kept vacant since inception. With regard to this, the explanation states that the present Registrar (contract appointee) satisfies all the qualifications for the post as prescribed in the Regulations and term of office has been extended from time to time by the Executive Council after considering his performance. 

Regarding the Statutory post of Finance Officer, the explanation mentions that steps are being taken to appoint a suitable person to the post. The University explanation stated, “Though the University had instituted the post of Finance Officer prescribing the qualifications and other conditions in the NUALS Regulations, the post was created only at the meeting of the Executive Council held on June 30, 2012 in view of the tremendous increase in the financial transactions of the University. “

NUALS through the explanation also made it clear that; the University is not in a position to appoint Registrar and Finance Officer on the scales of pay prevalent in other Universities of the State, due to financial constraints. The University had to meet the entire expenditure including salaries from its own resources and is not receiving any recurring non plan grants from the Government for meeting the expenditure. Details about the financial accounts of NUALS can be read here. 

The petition was submitted to Justice Manjula Chellur, NUALS, Chancellor, who is the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court and the Pro-Chancellor, P K Abdhu Rabb, State Education Minister; regarding the. A copy was also marked to Dr. K. M. Abraham, Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Kerala who is also a Member of the Executive Council, NUALS. You can read more about the petition here. 

An open letter to the GNLU Director – Dr. Bimal N Patel

Dear Bimal Patel Ji,

I have always held you and your institution in high esteem. I still vividly remember doing a story in 2011, while I was covering CLAT, which indicated the GNLU as the biggest gainer of CLAT 2011. I have even advised many CLAT aspirants to opt for the GNLU above many other law schools, since I strongly felt  that, the GNLU would emerge as one of the best law schools in the country considering the pace of its growth. I admire the steps you have been taking to make the GNLU a truly world class University in the next five years.

However, I feel the year 2012 has not been good for GNLU and its growth. A lot of things have brought GNLU in news for the wrong reasons which the administration could have avoided.

CLAT aspirant, Donnie Ashok, had to file a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court against the GNLU for refusing him admission to the university on the ground that he did not clear the 10+2 exam in his first attempt. The High Court had directed GNLU and the CLAT convenor to keep one seat vacant at GNLU. However, the matter was later amicably settled and Donnie was granted a seat. GNLU could have avoided this litigation and the cost involved had the GNLU considered the merits of Donnie’s case earlier within the system; which the GNLU did not do.


Few months later  GNLU was in the news for making 189 of its students to contribute 4 hours of community work, viz. gardening, weeding, watering plants, planting trees for attending a party without ‘authorisation’ from the college authorities. Personally I have felt this to be an invasion on the privacy of the students. The administration has nothing to do with the personal life of students outside the campus. I am sure that the students of the GNLU are capable of choosing between right and wrong.


Again the GNLU was in the news for alleged arbitrary admissions. As per the report of Times of India, a senior forest official had alleged that the University was following arbitrary rules and regulations in the admission process thereby doing injustice to students who deserve admission on the basis of merit. It is often alleged that though the Review Commission was appointed to plan and execute the list of criteria to make GNLU, a true world class University in the next five years; what fuelled the immediate formation of the Review Committee was the TOI report regarding arbitrary admissions.

Allegedly 400+ students had submitted a Petition to the Review Committee, a copy of which is with me. I was terribly disappointed after reading the Petition. The students raised issues about non appointment of a permanent Registrar, need for a students’ association, mandatory PSU internship, examination rules, back door admissions and a lot of other things. Once, you told me during a telephone conversation on this petition, “See the issue is not about a Bimal or a Raghul but the University”. Considering and respecting that fact, I have not let the report out in the media and have only made a brief reference about the same in a report which I did recently.

The petition also raised the issues relating to detention and goodness marks norms which has been quashed by Gujarat High Court.

It was sad for me to learn that you were filing an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge. The Court while setting aside the goodness mark norm mentioned that, “by including this ‘Goodness’ marks condition, the University has “given a tool in the hands of the faculty members, which could be used by them at their own whims and caprice. Such discretionary power in the hands of the faculty members would change the atmosphere of the college like for bad where everything would be under the command and control of the faculty members and the students would refrain from a free discussion in the class-room with the fear that if their view-point annoys the concerned faculty then it would weigh against them at the time of awarding the “goodness” marks. Such discretionary power is against the spirit of education”.

It is also a disheartening fact that the expenses for pursuing litigation are being met out of University exchequer when the said amount could be used for other fruitful purposes like development of infrastructure or for providing fee concession to under privileged kids who enter the law schools.

I am in full agreement with the view of the learned single Judge regarding the detention norms and goodness mark norm that the same should be quashed. These two rules will only be a blot on free academic atmosphere that a law university like GNLU asserts to guarantee. Hence, I humbly request you to honour the decision of the learned single judge of the Gujarat High Court and withdraw the appeal you have filed. I sincerely hope that the matter is amicably settled and GNLU emerges as the best legal institution of the country in the years to come. As you rightly pointed out, the issue is not about a person but about the University!

Best Regards,
Raghul Sudheesh

Image Courtesy: Bar & Bench