Now, even the judiciary wants financial autonomy

Quite often, certain judgments pronounced by the Supreme Court give an indication of its bias to the government's economic policies, especially the ones that aim to overhaul the entire economic culture.

Invariably, one would find the court heavily relying on data collected by surfing different search engines. Recently, a judges' decision in a case of suspected misuse of forest land had the backing of concrete evidence collated from satellite produced maps and graphs.

So, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Y K Sabharwal's earnest appeal to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, at an all judges function recently for empowering the judiciary with financial autonomy can't be termed as too much of an expectation.

But what would the judiciary do with this wonderful gift of autonomy? While some legal pundits may give a cynical definition of 'financial autonomy', others wouldn't hesitate in defending the demand.

"It's much awaited. For the freedom of judiciary, the institution must not be made dependent on the legislature-controlled guided executive," says six- time president of the Supreme Court Bar Association. This view is also supported by various judgments that have asked the government and its agencies to shun intra and inter litigations for the sake of saving the precious time of the judiciary. Majority of the litigations are due to the extravagance of either of the government bodies.

``Most of the courts function from dingy, dilapidated and  outdated structures with poor hygienic conditions even for judicial officers," CJI says. "India must meet the modern standards in the courts' infrastructure," he feels.

The judiciary's experience with the government audit department has been appalling. Various decisions taken at different high-level conferences involving chief justices and judges seeking financial support have been received with utmost disregard. Bureaucrats rejected them saying "financially not feasible" or simply "not agreed". 

For judiciary, it's an end of natural justice that ensures fair hearing by a court before passing a verdict. Ironically, there is no appeal against the dismissal of resolutions passed by the highest judiciary.