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.
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.
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”. “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.