tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post6799367448294502643..comments2023-09-21T16:17:51.838+05:30Comments on Law and Other Things: Where High Court Judges Go and Come FromAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09348738084817273397noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-46243882013703855292009-08-12T09:25:42.863+05:302009-08-12T09:25:42.863+05:30Interestingly, A. 124 (3) allows for the appointme...Interestingly, A. 124 (3) allows for the appointment of "distinguished jurists" to the Supreme Court. A similar provision for the High Courts in A. 217 (2) was omitted by the forty fourth amendment, 1978. I wonder why. Also, if conventional wisdom suggests that litigating lawyers are more suited to becoming judges, does it not make sense to "break in" non-litigating lawyers at the High Court level first, rather than entrusting them with the powers and responsibilities of a SC judge directly?Aparna Chandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06243943390200589989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-15766697596032869412009-08-11T19:19:05.803+05:302009-08-11T19:19:05.803+05:30Thanks Nick: certainly a step in the right directi...Thanks Nick: certainly a step in the right direction for us institutionally.<br /><br />A few thoughts. First, you'll notice that almost no newly appointed judge actively takes charge of cases - most go through several months of informal training under a senior judge in a division bench, and only then are they given individual assignments (in the High Courts), or permitted to preside over their own benches (Supreme Court/High Courts). Litigative experience seems to make little difference when you get across the bar in this context. <br /><br />Next, the adversarial system (at least in theory) ought to ensure that a newly appointed justice, say from the corporate world, is not misled because she doesn't know of a procedural technicality: in the adversarial system, the other lawyer must point these issues out. Lack of litigative experience ought therefore to be made up, at least in theory, by the nature of the adversarial system.<br /><br />But thirdly, Indian judges are generalists: while some are assigned informally to only one category of cases (tax and crime being the foremost), most do all sorts of work. An Indian partner working on complex cross border transactions may do very well as a judge on the commercial court, but she would perhaps not be as adroit on the MHADA cases. Picking judges from a wider pool of talent ought therefore to be accompanied by a more concrete form of division of labor.<br /><br />Finally, I would be interested in finding out how many non constitutional court justices are appointed from outside the bar in different jurisdictions: while it does make sense for constitutional court judges to have a broader vision; besides the need for efficiency through specialization, I'm not so sure a High Court summary suits assignment would benefit enormously by the appointment of a distinguished professor of constitutional law.Abhinav Chandrachudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07888178798437765865noreply@blogger.com