Prayagraj, Allahabad High Court Justice Vinod Diwakar has questioned the quality of deliberations in full court meetings, observing that the concurrence or dissent of individual judges is not recorded in their proceedings.
He also noted that only 16 full court meetings had been convened over the past 10 years, even though the chief justice is required to convene a full court meeting once every three months, excluding the summer vacation. Examining the administrative functioning of the high court, Justice Diwakar referred to the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which require the chief justice to convene a full court meeting once every three months, excluding the summer vacation. However, he observed that only 16 full court meetings had been convened over the past 10 years.
The judge further 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, coupled with stronger institutional accountability. A full court is a forum comprising all judges of a high court that deliberates on important institutional and administrative matters. The observations came in a judgment arising from four cases in which the judge flagged issues such as delays in the subordinate judiciary, non-compliance with directions on bail and broader concerns relating to judicial discipline.
In an 80-page judgment dated September 28 in the case of Pappu Met alias Pappu vs State of UP and another, Justice Diwakar also said there was an impression that the last two full court meetings were “stage-managed in the manner of a government whipping its members through a confidence vote”.
