Observing that only 16 Full Court meetings had been convened by the Chief Justice over the past 10 years, Justice Vinod Diwakar of the Allahabad high court has questioned whether the Full Court was functioning as a meaningful collegiate forum in which the individual views of judges were deliberated upon and recognised.
On the quality of deliberations in Full Court meetings of the high court, the judge observed the proceedings do not record the concurrence or dissent of individual judges. In a footnote, Justice Diwakar made a pointed observation about the conduct of recent Full Court meetings: “It was given an impression that last two Full Court meetings of this Court were stage-managed in the manner of a government whipping its members through a confidence vote, and this affronts the dignity of a Judge’s office. The observations were made while dealing with four cases in which the court flagged issues including delays in the subordinate judiciary, non-compliance with directions on bail and broader concerns relating to judicial discipline. A Full Court comprises all judges of the high court and is convened to deliberate on important administrative and institutional matters. The rule also provides that a meeting must be convened within a week if at least five judges request one.
Examining the administrative functioning of the high court, Justice Diwakar referred to the role of the Full Court under the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, including the frequency of its meetings, matters required to be placed before it and the manner in which deliberations are recorded. Referring to Rule 8 of Chapter III of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, the judgment noted that the Chief Justice is required to convene a Full Court meeting once every three months, excluding the summer vacation.
In an 80-page judgment dated September 28 in Pappu Met alias Pappu vs State of UP and another, Justice Diwakar also called for a recalibration of the “Chief Justice-centric” model of high court administration, emphasising the need for a more deliberative, institutionally balanced and participative approach, along with stronger institutional accountability.
