Prayagraj: Raising concerns over the administrative functioning of the Allahabad high court, Justice Vinod Diwakar has questioned whether full court meetings are serving as meaningful forums for collegiate deliberation, observing that the proceedings do not record the concurrence or dissent of individual judges.In an 80-page judgment delivered on Sept 28 in ‘Pappu Met alias Pappu vs State of UP and Another’, Justice Diwakar remarked that the last two full court meetings appeared to have been “stage-managed in the manner of a government whipping its members through a confidence vote”.The observations came while dealing with a batch of cases involving delays in the subordinate judiciary, non-compliance of bail orders and broader issues relating to judicial administration and discipline.Examining the high court’s functioning, the judge noted that Rule 8 of Chapter III of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 mandates a full court meeting every three months. However, only 16 such meetings were held in the past 10 years.A review of the agenda of the last 10 meetings showed that senior advocate designations were considered only twice, while most discussions centred around service matters relating to judicial officers. “No matter of general policy, no matter affecting the powers and status of the court, and no annual report on the administration of justice has been placed before the full court during this period,” the judgment said.Justice Diwakar further noted that annual reports on the administration of justice were neither placed before the full court nor forwarded to the government as required under the rules.Questioning the current decision-making structure, the court observed that the rationale behind a full court lies in the “mutual recognition” of judges’ views through collective deliberation. Failure to record individual concurrence or dissent, it said, could create a perception that judges’ individual views and institutional dignity were not being adequately recognised.The judgment also pointed out that minutes of committees constituted by the Chief Justice were not being placed before the full court, creating an impression that such committees functioned independently of the larger court.Among other concerns flagged were the absence of a participative process in allocation of judicial work, lack of any linkage between performance and work allocation, and the absence of clearly defined and notified criteria for elevation and promotion.The court further observed that administrative decisions were not subject to any independent audit or accountability mechanism, making it difficult to fix responsibility in cases of proven favouritism or partisanship.“The repercussions of unfettered, unguided discretion have had a devastating effect on the administration of justice,” the judgment said, while calling for a more balanced, transparent and participative model of court administration.Justice Diwakar directed the registrar (compliance) to place the judgment before the Chief Justice for appropriate consideration and further action.
