In the midst of packing before flying back to Delhi, after having served for over 10 months as the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, CJ Pradeep Nandrajog spoke exclusively with The Free Press Journal’s Narsi Benwal on a wide range of issues. Excerpts:
You have worked in New Delhi, the national capital, and also in Mumbai, the financial capital. How was your experience?
Both cities are good but from the environmental aspect, I can say that Bombay is heaven. Even the litigation in some way or the other, is identical, but in Delhi, there is better governance. In Maharashtra, I can say that 50 per cent of litigation is without any question of law but only because of bad governance and insensitivity. In most cases, I noted that bureaucrats had not done their duty and the common man was compelled to approach the HC. I think such issues should not come to HC. In terms of governance, Delhi is much more transparent than Maharashtra.
Speaking of litigations, what do you think can be done to bring down the pendency?As I said, at least 50 per cent of litigation in Maharashtra is because of bad governance. And such litigation is choking the HC to the point of collapse. In fact, the HC is sitting on the edge of collapse not because of the judiciary but because of the insensitivity of the government. I think recruiting more judges is not the solution. It is for the bureaucrats to work properly.
In your tenure as a CJ, you have been vocal about protecting the environment.
No, it would be wrong to say I was vocal about the environment. In fact, environment laws speak volume. The point is the government has legislated and made laws to protect the environment and has given global commitments (to reduce carbon emissions) and has accepted aid from foreign countries. And after all, this, if the government plans to harm the environment, then, isn’t it cheating the foreign countries and our own laws? Nations that have granted aid to India can move international forums against us.
The government’s dream project — the Coastal Road — suffered a setback by virtue of your orders. But now work has started again.
I never wanted to stay the work. All I can say is that any damage to the environment would be irreversible, so the government must ensure that no damage is caused to the environment. As far as the Coastal Road is concerned, the government disallowed any form of reclamation until the time this project was proposed. But the notification that the government relied on stated that reclamation could only be allowed only in exceptional circumstances, which I think must be something like a dying need. The government must understand that the metro is already causing pollution.
The government is facing opposition due to CAA from citizens. What is your opinion on this?
There are two ways to look at the issue. One is logical reasoning — whether it stands the test of the Constitution, wherein except for Articles 21 and 14, all others are applicable only to the citizens of our country. So the ones who do not have citizenship will become immigrants and they cannot claim discrimination. The other way to look at this is through constitutional values, which go beyond the technical language of the Constitution. Discrimination on the basis of religion would be against the touchstone of our constitutional values. The matter is sub judice and all eyes are on the Supreme Court now.
But what about the ongoing protests?
The ones who are protesting right now are guided by what has happened in Assam, wherein a large number of people have suddenly become stateless. There, more women have become stateless. The worst part is that the government has not specified what the proof (of citizenship) is and the courts there are giving judgments holding that Aadhaar, PAN, voter ID etc are no proof. Then what document should be the proof? I think people must wait for the government to publish the rules and what it will make the standard proof.
But instead of doing all this, they (government) have done half the damage, by introducing the National Population Register (NPR) across the country. The next step is to slip it (NRC) through. In a democracy, the government must be transparent. But here, you are not bringing in any transparency but you want to bring in some law parallel to the citizenship laws.
In such a scenario, I think telling a person not to be scared would be illogical because you (government) have created this fear in their minds by creating uncertainty. It’s time to create certainty and be transparent.
The decisions of the SC collegium are often debatable. Do you think there needs to be transparency?
I can say the SC collegium is obviously lacking transparency. I won’t say that just because I was superseded. Even in the case of the elevation of Justice Bhushan Gavai, at least three senior-most judges of Bombay were superseded. Transparency means norms which are left to the integrity and goodwill of those in the collegium. In a democracy, personalised decisions won’t work but policy decisions will.
