New Delhi/Bengaluru, Mar 23: Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has asserted that the goal of a Viksit Bharat by 2047 cannot be achieved through criminalisation of dissent, mindless arrests under the anti-terror law UAPA and “deep social fault lines”.
Speaking at the first national conference of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) in Bengaluru on Sunday, Justice Bhuyan also lamented the poor representation of women in the higher judiciary. He contrasted it with the figure of more than 50 per cent women making it to the posts of judicial officers in district judiciary across the country.
“But has it been replicated in constitutional courts? That is the question. That is where the scrutiny of the collegium system comes in. Why is it that when the assessment becomes subjective, women do not make the grade? Out of 287 SC judges since 1950, we had a total of only 11 women judges. Why? Starting with Fathima Beevi and now Justice Nagarathna, it is some two per cent,” Justice Bhuyan said.
He said that as per the collegium’s subjective assessment criteria, only a minuscule get selected as judges of high courts and the Supreme Court.
Raising serious concerns over the application of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), he referred to the data from 2019 to 2023 and said a truly developed nation must prioritise constitutional values over political slogans.
“Low convictions under UAPA show overuse, if not misuse, of the law,” he said. Presenting data from 2019 till 2023 of the people arrested under the UAPA, he said thousands were arrested, but the conviction rate is around five per cent.
“Parents cannot insist that their children will not have food prepared by a Dalit woman. That cannot be a Viksit Bharat model. We cannot have Viksit Bharat when Dalit people are made to stand in the corridor and people urinate on them. This can’t be the model of development. Respect for the individual must be protected,” he said.
Former CJI B R Gavai said there were many verdicts that said if the name of a person recommended for judgeship in a high court was returned for reconsideration by the government and reiterated by the collegium, the government had no option but to appoint them.
“But there are many instances where even after repeated reiterations, the persons have not been appointed,” he lamented. (Agencies)
