 Good evening to all of you today. Thank you very much, Ms. Seventy-Linan and the Bidya Foundation for inviting me to be the speaker at this year's BG Berghese Memorial Lecture. It will also to Mr. Stephen Butler, Ms. Umasudhi, Surakshapi Munal Pandey, members of Jain family and other distinguished members of the audience. I knew of BG Berghese from the days when he was the chairperson of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. I was on the executive committee of CHRI and he was a wonderful person to work with. BG Berghese was a pillar of strength in many more ways than one for journalist, human rights activist and civil society in general. He stood by and fought for democratic principles throughout alongside other stalwarts like Jayaprakash Narayan and V. M. Tarkudde. Most notably, I remember that during emergency his criticism of government policy led him to be removed from his role as editor of industrial times. Work is stood for a great many things which showed through all his actions and work, whether it was working for civil liberties and democratic rights through his association with organizations like CHRI, PUCL and the like or the idea of a free press through symbolizing what was made by ideal journalism. Indeed, journalism was practically his mission. It goes without saying that he is greatly missed today, especially in the age when large sections of media have become propaganda machines more than anything else. Ladies and gentlemen, when I was asked to speak at this memorial lecture, I thought it would be most appropriate and relevant to speak of the proceedings that have lately besieged the institution I have been most closely associated with the judicial. I want to start with a small anecdote. In the late 19th century, the third Chief Justice of Victoria in Australia was one George Higginbotham whose reputation as someone who was extremely thefty and who derided wealth was only way too known. His fees when practicing as a lawyer were notoriously low and he routinely distributed his earnings to the lady. One story of his when he was a judge particularly stands out. At Chief Justice, he was entitled to a stipend of 3,500 pounds which was 500 pounds more than his fellow judges. He was so uncomfortable at the prospect of being paid that extra amount that he would spend the additional 3,500 pounds on lavish entertainments which were completely useless to him. His view was that as Chief Justice, he was merely primus interperes or first among equals. In his official capacity, he was the chairperson and official representative of the bench, but in all respects he regarded his powers to be identical to those of his fellow judges. Indeed, this is true of everywhere in the world that is a Chief Justice is merely first among equals. Even in high courts in India which I am familiar with, even though Chief Justice has certain official role such as showing some intellectual leadership presiding over administrative meetings and allocating work and recommending names of judges along with the collegium judges at no point of time is the Chief Justice considered or made to believe that they may be superior to other judges in the court. Another Australian judge, Sir Owen Dixon captured this idea beautifully in his speech on being thrown into the office of Chief Justice and I quote his words. The court is a cooperative institution. The position of the man who presides differs very little from that of any other judge. Perhaps he receives a little more attention from the bar than he deserves because he announces the conclusion of the court first, but all my judicial experience tells me that a man's influence on the court does not depend on where he sits. There is no need for me to be cryptic about what I choose to speak on this subject or why I choose to speak on this subject. All of you are well aware of what it is that I am referring to, but it is worth recapturing just briefly if only to re-emphasize the importance and gravity of the incident which I worry that perhaps we have not fully grasped. A little less than two months ago, on January 12, 2018, Tremors shook the ground beneath the Indian judicial system. In an extraordinary event in the history of any nation, as the protagonists themselves described it, when four of the five senior most judges of the Supreme Court decided to go public with their concerns about the working of the institution they were a part of. Never before in the history of independent India and certainly not in the history of the highest court of the land had judges address the media through a press conference. The four judges, Justices Justi Chalmeshwar, Ranjan Gogoy, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph without mincing words said that unless the judiciary as an institution is preserved, democracy will not survive in this country. Their concerns spanned a range of issues, but most importantly, including included the administration of Supreme Court, which they said is not in order and I quote, many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months. They also expressed pointed displeasure at the Chief Justice of India's actions over the few past months stating that we met the CJA with a specific request which unfortunately could not convince him that we were right, therefore we were left with no choice except to communicate it to the nation that please take care of this institution and that we tried collectively to persuade the Chief Justice of India that certain things are not right and remedial measures need to be taken, but unfortunately failed, which is why they decided to approach the press and make their concerns public. The crux of their allegation was that court conventions of bench strength and bench composition in the allocation of cases were not being followed. They especially alleged that there have been instances where cases having far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution had been assigned by the Chief Justice of this court selectively to the benches of their preferences without any rational basis for such first such assignment. The judiciary in India is unarguably an institution that enjoys the trust of the people. It is perhaps one of the most powerful institutions in the country and is highly regarded for having of held constitutional principles time and again over the past decades. The press conference and the allegations made by the judges brought to light many issues which have been simmering for last several months and which strike at the foundations of the institution. Today, ladies and gentlemen, I want to talk about these issues, the implications it has on the future of the judiciary and the kinds of question we need to be asking to ensure that our democratic system remains in good health. When the four judges held this press conference, some commentators speculated that this amounted to gross impropriety on their part and their actions smacked of judicial misconduct. While they have not attempted to defend their actions thereafter, it seems unlikely that they would not have assessed the implications of these events. Indeed, their actions actually suggest the contrary that rather than being in breach of their code of conduct, they were perhaps displaying allegiance to the oath of office they took upon entering office. I believe that these four judges felt so troubled by the going on in the judiciary and the Supreme Court in particular over the past few months that they felt driven to go public. For otherwise, they would be in transgression of their constitutional duties. In my mind, there was no doubt as to the intentions behind the press conference. All four of judges involved risked something or the other in being a part of public conference. Justice Gogoi, for example, has placed online his chances of succeeding Justice Deepak Mishra as the Chief Justice of India for, as per the convention, the incoming CGI is appointed on the recommendation of the outgoing CGI. In equal measure, the other three, although they will retire well before the current CGI, have risked criticism from their peers and perhaps also getting isolated from the bar and the bench after they retire. When the press conference took place, the question that probably crossed most people's mind was whether the judges were right in the first place to speak publicly at all. This reminds me of an incident that took place when I was a judge in Bombay High Court. In this case, the senior judges, in this case, some serious allegations had been made against the then Chief Justice in Bombay High Court. The senior judges took the lead against the Chief Justice. They spoke to the bar or leaders of bar privately and they also involved some junior judges and took them into their confidence. Eventually, the Chief Justice was made to resign by the Supreme Court. If the senior judges had not been received in this manner or if the resignation had not taken place, I have often wondered what might have happened. The senior judges might well have gone to the press had they been sufficiently disenchanted with the many things that way things were. There are situations and situations that lead individuals to the action. In this regard, Justice MC Chagla, in my opinion, was India's, one of India's finest judges, had some opposite remarks to make in his autobiography. In the case of MC Chagla, in contrast to the story I just told you, however, the pressure came from the government. The then Chief Minister of Bombay, Muradji Desai had expressed disapproval at certain speeches Justice Chagla had made criticizing government and policy. Justice Chagla, while agreeing with Chief Minister Desai that a just should not take part in politics or discuss political issues, said that this rule was subject to two exceptions. The first was that the right to criticize the government on its education policy, which he was personally interested in, he was the Vice Chancellor of Bombay University at that time. Second is most important relating to laws which concerned the administration of justice. Justice Chagla said, if the government passed any law or pursued any policy which undermined the prestige of the judiciary or weakened the administration of justice, he would speak and speak out loudly. While this is not clearly a situation like Justice Chagla found himself in, the issue raised by the four judges concerns the question of administration of justice. And to that extent, many of you will agree with me that it behoves of a member of the judiciary to speak out loudly. In his book unambiguously titled Judges, the English Baronet and Barrister David Panick captures this appropriately in his critical analysis of Kilmure rules set out in 1955, which prohibit judges from participation on radio or television. Fortunately, this rule is no longer the norm in UK, but it came about when the BBC asked Lord Chancellor Kilmure to grant permission to certain judges to participate in a series of radio lectures about great judges of the past. In response, Kilmure said that importance of keeping the judiciary in this country insulated from the controversy of the day was of primary concern. Kilmure added that it was inappropriate for judges to be associated with anything which could be fairly interpreted as entertainment for judges to appear on TV or radio or television. Panick correctly argues that this man, this man had no justification especially in the case of an independent judiciary and he says and I quote his words. Judicial independence is compromised not by public explanation of the judges views, but by attempts to restrain him and threats to dismiss him if he does not conform to conventions which have no legal force and are contrary to the public interest. A judge should be fully entitled to speak out on matters of public concern so long as he does not give people cause for suspecting bias or partiality in the cases to be heard in his court or and so long he de-referenced from comment on matters of political controversy. Especially in circumstances that are considered damaging to the administration of justice, the silence of judges cannot possibly be justified. Panick adds that judges should not be treated like children in Victorian era required to remain silent unless spoken to they are entitled indeed they have a public duty to speak out of matters concerning the administration of justice. Closer to home Justice MC Charla too was aware too aware of the consequences of silence. In his autography he wrote there is always a tendency on the part of any government to centralize power to encroach more and more on the authority of collateral organs of the constitution and to throw tentacles which would embrace as many independent institutions as possible. It is an unfortunate fact he added that all governments regardless of their complexion resent criticism, opposition and dissent to a greater or lesser degree. Arguably this fear persists even today but such fear should not overwhelm the freedom to speak out. Several judges and lawyers express the view that these four should not have gone public but should have attempted to resolve the matter internally. I do not know what this means but I will try to address this issue. As one English Chief Justice Lord Bidgery said that the best judge is the man who is least known to the readers of the daily mail and who advice that judges should not quote publicity and certainly should not do should not do their work in such a way as to cash the eye of the newsman. Some observers said that these four judges violated judicial ethics in going to the public in this fashion. On May 7 1997 the Supreme Court of India in its full court adopted a charter called restatement of values of judicial life to serve as a guide to be observed by judges essential for independent strong and respected judiciary indispensable in the impartial administration of justice. According to guideline number 8 a judge shall not enter into public debate or expresses views in public on political matters or on matters that are pending or likely to arise for judicial determination. Guideline number 9 says a judge is expected to let his judgments speak for themselves he shall not give interviews to the media. But in the present context neither of these guidelines 8 or 9 can be held against the actions of these four judges. Did they enter into public debate? On the contrary they made only a public disclosure. They did not express any views on political matters or on matters pending for judicial determination. Instead they made a public statement on what they felt was a state of institution they were a part of about judicial independence and impartiality about administrative functioning case allocation and judicial convention. One worthy judge commentator I think he is a retired judge of Delhi I quote also said that there must be contempt action against these four judges. Suggestions such as this merely perpetuate the cultural norms of secrecy and non transparency that have made the judiciary to where it is today. As an opaque institution that can neither be questioned from within or outside. This institutional construct is a legacy of our colonial past. We and no longer holds valid in the context of modern notions of governance, administration, transparency and accountability. Several sections of media have reported that many principles and conventions regarding allocation of cases were disregarded. Some reports suggest that cases that were only partnered by one bench were abruptly shifted to another bench. In the circumstances what were the alternatives for the four judges? They already spoke to the Chief Justice directly but of no avail. The letter detailing their concerns which they disclosed after the press conference had been sent to the Chief Justice in November 2017. A few months before they called the conference clearly these issues were brewing for a long time. They could have gone to the other judges within the court but surely it would have created a greater rift because Supreme Court is not like a high court of Bombay or some other court where the judges body is very united in the sense that there is a belongingness to the particular court. They could have as a last resort gone to the President of India but I am relieved that they did not. For at any and all cost the independence of the institution must always be maintained and the executive and legislature should be kept away from judicial affairs. Although they did not say in too many words it was clear that the immediate trigger for the press conference was a meeting held with the Chief Justice earlier that day regarding the allocation of one particular case involving a deceased judge of a special CBI court, Judge B. H. Roya to a particular bench. Judge Roya was presiding over the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case and died of heart attack in December 2014 in Nagpur. When the Sheikh case is complex and converted matter in itself, Judge Roya's death and the case filed thereafter is backed by its own set of conspiracy theorists. Was there an attempt to pressurize the judge in making a decision in a particular way in the Sheikh's case? Was he offered price? Was it the court's duty to inquire into his death and so on? Many unanswered questions exist and while it is a digression likely to be of much interest I need to return to focus on the issue I began with that is the immediate trigger for the press conference. According to the four judges they were concerned about the bench to which this case was allocated which was contrary to roaster and convention. After the press conference the Chief Justice made public the roaster for the Supreme Court. On the face of it it is a step towards transparency but on closer examination a few concerns emerged. For example he has kept all the PILs to himself except social justice. As a result all PILs the appeals SLPs filed against order passed by the High Court in PILs will also go to the CGI or the CGI will allot it to a bench of his choice. This is the essence of the roaster which has been declared. More importantly all accountable matters have also been kept with the CGI. In the present scenario in the roaster in the roaster made public and this is a very important aspect on which I am going to address you at some length. We see that all four judges who made this public declaration are kept out of all important matters be it the Ayodhya case the Adhaar matter or the land equation row while it is true that seniority is not a sole criteria but seniority does matter. From my experience for example whenever a new judge comes in the court they remain quiet at least for a while even when sitting in hearing they mostly tend to agree with the senior judge who is with them on the bench. The expectation of both the senior and the junior judge is that the senior judge at least would have been there for a few years and would have some experiences. Even after the elevation of some fine judges from the high court to the supreme court they would if people would found them I mean keeping silent for a for quite a long time. The so experience matters though the junior judge would also bring a complimentary perspective of their views and here I would like to share with you some of my own experiences. After few days after my appointment I sat with Justice Pensey a judge with great integrity and a very fine judge and used to come prepared in every case but he was very strong and it would be difficult to persuade him to change his views. And since I was sitting with him I used to also do some homework. So, in one case I I thought that the petitioner had very arguable case and the respondent authority's conduct was highly improper. So, I told Justice Pensey that this is a gross case he looked at me his mind and he dismissed the petition. So, he agreed with me that if but he thought that it was a gross case so it should be dismissed. I was completely flabbergasted and before I could say anything the next case was called up. I can give you several example I mean from the supreme court we are junior judges sitting with a Chief Justice of India taking a particular view and after sitting with the next Chief Justice of India taking diametrically opposite views. I mean this has happened last year. So, I mean I must also quote I mean a story narrated by Mr. Fani Nariman that he was arguing a case against the government before Chief Justice Ray and Chief Justice Ray decided to refer it to a constitutional bench of five judges and Mr. Nariman thought that the that the perhaps the bench will be packed with the judges more inclined towards the government, but to his surprise that is what he said that he found that the bench constituted all senior most five judges. Why Karnan case went to first seven judges that is the importance of seniority and that cannot be disregarded and therefore, I would like to bring to your notice what are the best practices of about the bench allocation in the democratic countries either best commonwealth countries or the other countries throughout the world. Judiciary in other countries have evolved principles of neutral case assignment and fairness transparency and accountability in judicial procedure to standard their judicial institution India can only learn from this. What is neutral case assignment you may ask as Professor Petra Butler described it. It is a system designed to prevent the risk of judicial panels being packed or to prevent the risk associated with the perception that panel packing may have occurred or may take place in the future. It involves making decisions for assignment based on principles of neutrality impartiality transparency and collegiality or consultation. Why neutral case assignment important she gives four reasons which are useful to replicate. First courts are protected from intervention in the quest of justice. Second it bolsters public confidence in the impartiality and independence of the judiciary. Third it assures retigrants of equality and fairness in that everyone has the same chance of getting the judge favorable or unfavorable to their calls and fourth it ensures that basic rights and freedoms are not are not compromised. Of these the importance of establishing and retaining public confidence is often misunderstood and miscalculated. In 2002 in U.S. case of Greta versus Bollinger one issue was whether the panel of panel on which the judges were sitting had been packed. The dissenting judge made the acute observation that unless we expose to public view our failures to follow the courts established procedure our claim to legitimacy is illegitimate. It would be heartening to see our judiciary pay equal importance to these questions. In the United Kingdom the practice of case assignments has developed through custom and convention with a very strong emphasis on a culture of trust. This culture of trust is so strong within the judiciary that the values of impartiality and internal judicial independence appear to have been internalized. The process of allocation of cases has some structure but also allows for discretion. The registrar assign cases to panels on random basis but the ultimate authority lies with the president and deputy president of the court. These two however do not act as if they have unlimited discretion and they use consultative, flexible and open approach to case allocation. To operative word to my mind is in my opinion being consultative. As a result it has become a matter of convention that other judges in the court are consulted and provide feedback on the constitution of panels. This is further accentuated by the conventions evolved around bias and I am going to speak about bias in certain recent cases which are decided by the Supreme Court. The general principle is that wherever a fair-minded and impartial observer would consider there to be a real possibility of bias the judge concerned must recuse as concluded in Potter versus McGill. Further if there is a real ground for doubt in any case that doubt should be resolved in favour of recusal. This notion of convention dictated judicial practice in matters of assignment is followed in other common world countries as well such as Australia, Canada but with stricter norms governing the convention. For example, in the High Court of Australia the Chief Justice proposes a roster for each sitting. The power of assignment exercised by the Chief Justice is not determinative in any way but merely recommendatory. It also relies on convention and like the UK principle a judge is disqualified if a reasonable person may suspect that the judge might be unable to bring a completely impartial mind to bear on this subject of litigation. In the United States Courts of Appeal cases case assignments are random and are separated from panel selection to maintain integrity of the system. The US Supreme Court itself sits on bank and is not there for a suitable comparator here. Now an alternative to convention which our courts can definitely do is dictating norms of case assignment to buy a clearly defined rules as in the case of Europe. The European Court of Human Rights for example has its rules of the court that set out how cases are to be allocated. Seniority and rotation and drawing of plots is the usual process. The process recognizes that seniority bestows certain rights. At the same times the rule offer a neutral freighter because they create clear and accountable methods that spread the workload and minimize arbitrariness. The Chief Justice of European Court does not get a right to allocate the matter to selective benches. This is all governed by the rules. There is a grand chamber of the ECHR. I mean for example in that grand chamber as for relevant rule that is 24-1 it comprises the president, the vice president, section presidents and 11 other judges and substitute judges chosen by drawing laws. 11 judges and the substitute judges are chosen by drawing laws. The European Court of Justice also has elaborate rules. In similar fashion benches follow the principle of seniority with the president, vice president and chamber president automatically included and other members chosen either according to simple seniority or the principle of seniority alternating in reverse order. That is quite interesting proposal. In other words the first on the list is the senior most, the second on the list is the junior most and so on. It is clear that clear rules and conventions are followed everywhere in the administrative matters involving the court. These are scrupulously observed in order to preserve the integrity of the judiciary as an independent and fair institution and environment of trust envelops the entire process. So, what happens when the when somebody claims that the Chief Justice of India is the master of the roaster and he can allocate the case to any judge of his choice? I mean I must give you the example of Russia. A report prepared by a delegation of the International Bar Association on Judicial Independence in Russia, the delegation noted that there does not seem to be any system for ensuring that cases are allocated according to objective criteria in that country. Further the delegation said that there was anecdotal evidence to suggest that particular cases were allocated by the Chief Justice to judges more likely to deliver suitable verdicts or that cases were transferred in the middle of the proceedings because the judge concerned refused to be influenced. So, would you like to be compared with a Russian system or would you prefer to have a system where which is time tested and which is followed in almost all democratic countries? To return to the Indian story sadly this is not the first time that allegations of lack of transparency and fairness in managing the roaster have emerged over the past few months spanning the tenure of multiple Chief Justice. A letter written about a year ago to the CJI asked him to permit to grant permission to probe into the suicide note written by the former Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Kalikopul who committed suicide in 2016. After the Supreme Court restored the Outstake Chief Minister Navam Tuki to office. Without going into too many details about the case which also included as I said conflict of interest who had made certain allegations about sitting Supreme Court judges and also against policy several politicians ministers etcetera including the Chief Justice of India. As per the Supreme Court's decision in the K. Vira Swami case criminal proceeding against a judge belonging to the higher judiciary could only be initiated in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The judgment also said that if the CJI thought that criminal proceeding should not be started they had to be crossed and if allegations were made against the CJI directly then such permission may have to be sought from other Supreme Court judges. When no investigation was made into the allegations of poor suicide note and I am not saying that I accept these allegations I mean there are some allegations in the suicide note that's all but what is important is how this matter was handled. His wife wrote to Justice Keher asking for his permission to file an FIR against the judges mentioned in the note in accordance with Vira Swami's case. As per Viva of Vira Swami's case this matter should have gone to the next senior most judge but it could not because there was also irrigation against Justice Deepak Pishra so it should have gone to the next judge. In the response the Chief Justice listed Pulswai's letter as a repetition. This was treated as a letter was treated as a repetition. A letter seeking permission on the administrative side is treated as a as a repetition and placed before a judge comprising judges relatively lower in order of seniority. Pulswai withdrew her petition before any decision could be made apparently unhappy that her specific request for an administrative decision was ignored and was instead converted into a repetition to be decided by by the judicial side. While the four judges did not refer to Pulswai's case in a letter sent to the CGI that was November letter some months before the held press conference they did draw attention to the case of RP Lutra versus Union of India. This case requires a little bit of a context. In December 2015 a constitution bench of the Supreme Court had stuck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission NJAC as being unconstitutional but had also directed the Centre to revise existing memorandum of procedure that is MOP which was signed by the Union of India after the third judges case was pronounced. In the light of the decision RP Lutra petitioned the Delhi High Court arguing that appointment made after this December 2015 decision were null and void. He said that the this is appointments MOP is not finalized so all appointments made after that decision should be stuck down. After failing at the high court he approached the Supreme Court. There are two judge bench agreed with the High Court's rejection of Lutra's petition but asked the Centre to explain why the MOP had not been finalized as yet. The stand of the judiciary was that it is already finalized they had given their view on the matter and there nothing remains to be added further. The four judges in their letter to the CGI said that a two judge bench could not have dealt with a matter that was already decided by a fine judge constitution bench and that only a bench of similar strength could have considered the matter. Beside the allocation of the case to two judge bench and the events occurred thereafter and even more recently in the last week when the when the government blocked the appointment of the of recommendation of a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to the to achieve justice and the and the appointment the recommendation to appoint Justice Joseph as the judge of the Supreme Court according to me is one of the most deserving judges to be elevated to the Supreme Court of India. But anyway that appointment was is blocked and according to me MOP is going to be crucial test for the office of the CGI whether it is this one or the next. Finally there is a case involving multiple medical institutions that were originally barred by the center from of admitting medical students calling the report from Medical Council of India that these institutions failed to meet required criteria. Subsequently some of these institutions moved various courts including the Supreme Court and obtained orders to continue operations or some such partial reliefs. The criminal complaint in the in the corruption case alleged that a conspiracy was hashed by certain persons including a former Orissa High Court judge and a Hawala dealer to allegedly bribe Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court judges who were hearing the case. Now this FIR has been filed by the CBI. A huge amount of money has been recovered from one of the conspirators. Now Chief Justice Bishra was himself was leading the bench which had heard and decided the case of one particular medical college in question. Now the petitioner alleged and how correct it is I tell you that the central bureau of investigation CBI was likely to misuse the material and judges could be brought under pressure and asked that a special investigation team be instituted to look into the matter. Justice Chalmeshwar was heading a two-judge bench hearing the petition directed that it should be decided by a bench of five senior most judges constricting the seriousness of the allegation. There were two petitions also claiming senior similar having senior similar pairs and there was some allegation of forum shopping etcetera but I will not go into that. The Chief Justice in response declared himself to be the master of the roaster. Holding that there could be no kind of command directing the Chief CGI to constitute the bench. In other words it was declared that it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice of India to decide what cases has to be heard by which judge. The petitions in questions were assigned to other benches and both were subsequently dismissed with petitioners being slapped with the cost of 25 lakh rupees for pursuing what the court termed frivolous and contemptuous litigation. The judiciary's proclivity to use contempt as a tool to silence naysayers requires a conversation of its own which I shall not digress here. The question that arises in the present context is whether this power of being master of the roaster is unfettered and can be exercised without due attention being paid to convention and or transparency and fairness. I would like to stress that I am not in any way suggesting that seniority should have been the sole criteria for allocating cases. But the fact that four of the top five judges of Supreme Court other than the Supreme Court having group scrupulously kept out of all constitutional matters is surely strange and something to be questioned. Surely it is the duty of every Chief Justice to aspire to protect fundamental features of the judiciary. There are robust practices that are followed in many high courts in India itself which can be used as examples and I would like to state how the high courts function in this country. For example, Chief Justice of High Court normally decide with benches in advance taking into conscious consideration relevant factors such as the ability of the judges and their previous experience in handling certain types kinds of subject matters. Division benches are always headed by senior judges and it will never happen that a senior judge is sitting in a roaster of lower comp importance while a junior judge I am not saying that this is a full practice, but it really exclude the possibility of any arbitrariness. The objective of the Chief Justice is managing the roaster is to strike a balance between disposal of cases and maintaining the integrity and interpreters of the institution and the quality of justice that is to be meted out. I would tell you a story of a Chief Justice who came from outside to Bombay High Court. I did not know him, but he called me. I was not I was not my maybe senior number 20 or so, but he called me and he said that just he wants my opinion about the other judges. He said that not about their character etc. He is going to prepare the roaster. He just want to know because I practice in the bar that what is the judges expertise, how they work, what is their working style etc. And he took copyist notes for two hours just to for the purpose of preparing the final roaster. So, the I would say that the present CJA's actions may have been exercise in individual capacity, but are indicative of a deeper malaise affecting the Indian judiciary. Any educated observer will have noticed that the Supreme Court has to use Shekhar Gupta's phrase ring fenced and if not quarantined itself. This opacity has not developed by circumstances, but is a proactive construct of the judiciary itself reaching to its apogee perhaps in denying the application of the right to information act to itself. For many decades, the Supreme Court has hidden behind a mask of constitutionalism defending its silence as an intrinsic measure, interesting feature of its institutional integrity and role as a constitutional authority. But such a display of silence and integrity comes up short when it is at the cost of rule of law and principles of transparency and accountability. There is little that outsiders can do to persuade this arm of state to open up. Ultimately, the desire to be transparent and follow principles of rule of law and natural justice must emerge from within the institution itself. That is what has happened with this press conference I mean took place. The most immediate and most appropriately positioned constituency to question the judiciary's behavior over the past few decades is the bar. The leaders of the bar ought to take more proactive step towards pushing for reforms in the judiciary. It I am not suggesting any blame game who is wrong just this Mishra was wrong or four judges were wrong, but the bar should take up initiative for bringing reforms in the judicial system especially in introducing transparency in asking the judiciary to open up with allocation of work. They can play a much greater role than they have played to date. I believe the Indian judiciary has much to learn from many places from other courts of the world and or even from from within the Indian judicial system. Whether it is a developing a strong culture of trust and consultation like the English or building a clear transparent seniority and rule based system of allocation like the Europeans and avoiding the ad hocism in Russia. We are not to learn and adopt and evolve for ourselves. Similarly we need to introspect and reflect on what our judicial system has evolved in. In a system that is built on the idea of separation of powers, each branch of the state feels it operates in a perfect internal balance. Indeed in India the threat to judicial independence is most commonly seen as one emerging from the executive branch and occasionally the legislature. Today we have a situation which was foreseen many decades back by Chief Justice Y.B. Chaturthout when in 1985 he observed there is greater threat to the independence of the judiciary from within than without. Mind well these threats many a times are orchestrated at the behest of the executive. Do not mistake all that I have said over past or so is as a mere criticism. Instead you must realize that I am pointing out to an opportunity that lies ahead for the judiciary. If anything must happen as a consequence of this unfortunate incident it is reformed. The judiciary needs immediate reform on multiple fronts. Why for instance is the issue of applicability of RTI to the CGI still pending for the last 10 years after the decision of the Delhi High Court. And surely the time has come to do away with the college and system and relook at the OPEC system that the judges have constructed for themselves. And most certainly this is an opportunity to introduce reform in the allocation of cases. The role played by the CGI as master of the roster should be more consultative process than it is today. Perhaps the Supreme Court can consider framing rules along the lines of ECJ or ECHR. A healthy balance of senior and junior judges is also desirable as I discussed earlier. There must also be efforts made to demonstrate democratize the position of the CGI and high courts of cheat justice. They all enjoy immense powers in the courts as their roles are structured today. You will recall that the cheat justice then cheat justice of Bombay High Court simply in a great haste removed the case from a bench and was consisting of a very fine judge merely on the application made by the state government that they they feel that the judges are biased she had to retract. But anyway that kind of a power must be regulated properly by rules. It would be wonderful if the present CGI would take up these issues. In any case Justice Gogai has raised some of these questions and if he is indeed next in line to the office of the CGI he must use his time to change these processes. Ladies and gentlemen India has been fortunate to count amongst its public intellectuals women and men who have been fined lawyers and judges who understand and appreciate the many facets and nuances of judicial independence, transparency and fairness. In their hands I know that the judiciary will not be allowed to implode or compromise on its integrity. In the hands of a probing and critical fourth estate I know that the judiciary will be compelled to stand up and play its role as a holder of the constitutional values to its fullest and to its standard. In the hands of the people of India I know that the judiciary will remain the most important and trust for the institution this country has known in its modern history. Now one can say is to do your best to leave up to you to these expectations and and do your roles with sincerity and and and I am committed efforts. Thank you.