Sibal raises objections to govt increasing number of judges through ordinance

Former law minister Kapil Sibal on Saturday raised objections to the manner in which the Centre has increased the strength of judges through an ordinance and not through legislation debated in Parliament.Addressing a press conference, the independent Rajya Sabha MP said this shows the Bharatiya Janata Party-led governments lack of transparency and interest in consultation, which is anti-democratic in nature.In 1950, Sibal said, there were only seven judges in the Supreme Court.

Former law minister Kapil Sibal on Saturday raised objections to the manner in which the Centre has increased the strength of judges through an ordinance and not through legislation debated in Parliament.

Addressing a press conference, the independent Rajya Sabha MP said this shows the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government's lack of transparency and interest in consultation, which is anti-democratic in nature.

In 1950, Sibal said, there were only seven judges in the Supreme Court. The number was gradually increased over the years and has now reached 37, besides the chief justice, he pointed out.

''The question is where do we go as an institution. The reason why I am worried is that the rationale given to increase the strength of judges is worrying.

''It is really the government that is responsible for the increase in litigation because it is a major litigant. The majority of litigation emanates from the government,'' he said.

Sibal alleged that the Centre has introduced harsh legislations and weaponised those by the use of agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), adding that because of this, litigation is increasing.

''The government itself is responsible for the increase in litigation through the weaponisation of legislations,'' the eminent lawyer said, adding that the increase in the number of PIL matters has also led to a rise in litigation.

''Litigation will increase but the question is where you want to take the Supreme Court.

''By issuing this ordinance, the matter would not be taken to Parliament and the issue of what kind of a Supreme Court we want would not be debated in Parliament,'' Sibal said.

The former law minister added that the opposition should have been taken into confidence, discussions should have taken place and retired judges should have been consulted.

''You cannot have an ordinance. That shows the lack of transparency and lack of interest in consultation, which is anti-democratic in nature.

''These are serious issues that impact the credibility of the institution. Governments should be run through a process of dialogue and as far as possible, consensus. It should not be a diktat of the party that rules,'' Sibal said.

He also claimed that if this ''anti-democratic'' process continues, ''then you will have responses which are also not palatable''.