Sanjay Raman Sinha (SRS): In October 2019, you became the first chief justice of Andhra Pradesh. You built the entire judicial system there from scratch and cleared nearly 45,000 cases. What were the biggest challenges in setting up that new system? Were there any particularly difficult moments or anecdotes you’d like to share?
Justice JK Maheshwari (JKM): When I took charge as chief justice of the newly established Andhra Pradesh High Court, out of 13, 11 District Bar Associations were on strike. The issue was the state government’s announcement of three capitals of the state. Of those 11 districts, six opposed the call, four supported, and one was neutral. When I asked what impact this had on courts, the reply was blunt: “The Bar was divided and we couldn’t wait much.” Every district has an administrative/portfolio judge, so I asked them to engage with the Bar and explain that this was a policy decision, not a judicial one. I also said that I was ready to meet them directly, if needed. Two days later, my fellow colleagues reported that the Bar was still not convinced. To prevent a growing backlog, I convened an unprecedented virtual meeting with all the District Bar Associations’ presidents, secretaries, executive members, the district judge, senior-most ADJ, and CJM from each district. For two hours, we discussed the issues as well as the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act and the state notifications. I made it clear: policy changes must follow the law, and we cannot allow public faith in justice delivery to be held hostage. The outcome was that seven districts called off the strike immediately. The remaining four were given time to reconsider. Visakhapatnam raised the demand for a bench of the High Court, which I said would be considered; but only after work resumed. That meeting got the courts running again. My aim was to build a collective work culture, not one dependent only on the chief justice. With the collective efforts of all the judges involved, the system restarted.
The next challenge was pendency. We found on shifting of the court that 9-10 month old case files lying unattended on the floor. I ordered them to catalogue and first arrange the files in almirahs. We also had a severe manpower shortage. Out of around 1,000 sanctioned staff after reorganisation, only about 300-odd were filled, and some staff was working on deputation. I corrected that immediately. After my joining in October 2019, within three months, Covid had arrived in March 2020. We started online hearing and on March 25, 2020, the Andhra Pradesh High Court became the first High Court in the country to hear cases in the virtual mode during the pandemic.
At that stage, my first priority was how e-filing can be done without any modules of virtual filing. We couldn’t take up cases for hearing. I assigned three judges to design an e-filing module and two judges to draft an SOP. The High Court could frame the SOP, since rules would have needed state’s approval. With my colleagues’ help, we completed both within three-four days. Next, we trained the Bar virtually on e-filing. We then began hearing cases, including stale matters. The biggest hurdle was the staff. Due to Covid guidelines, only 30 percent could attend in person. With just 100 of 300 staff available, the High Court couldn’t function. I requested the staff on deputation not to leave and promised that I would send them back before my tenure ended. They agreed. We also asked the government for some outsourced staff. They were reluctant at first, but eventually approved it. I had the assigned the deputation staff to train them, and one judge to oversee this. By god’s grace, and with support my colleagues on the bench and the Bar, we managed to hear 94,000 cases within only 18 judges. As per the e-Committee’s report, the Andhra Pradesh High Court heard the second-highest number of cases during the Covid period.
SRS: Today, when the judiciary is struggling with pendency, how do you view the case load? Is it simply due to a shortage of judges, or is it also tied to the complexity of procedures? At a fundamental level, what changes do you think are needed to eliminate pendency?
JKM: To address pendency, we have to look at it in two parts—capacity and case management. On capacity, the 1987 Law Commission recommendation itself says that the sanctioned judicial strength needed is far higher than what we have today. The Indian judiciary is functioning at about 20 percent of that requirement. Let’s be clear, I’m not blaming any institution for this. It’s also about infrastructure and support staff. The Executive and the Judiciary have to work together to bridge this gap, because without adequate judges, infrastructure, and staff, we simply cannot cope with pendency. Then comes case management. In pending matters, adjournments can be regulated to some extent, but not at the cost of justice. We also need to be realistic about listing. If a judge can effectively hear 40 cases, giving him a list of 60 will only lead to adjournments. The list has to be practical, and the focus must be on efficient disposal. The truth is, judges are already working beyond capacity, often at the cost of personal time. After court hours, we spend four to five hours every day reading files. Even on Saturdays and Sundays, we are busy with academies, lectures, and writing judgments. At least half of our partial working days go into clearing pending judgments. The way forward, in my view, is to build a “resolution mindset” among litigants—through mediation, arbitration, and conciliation. From my experience in the Supreme Court and High Courts, I’ve seen that even at a later stage, about 10 percent of cases get resolved when we tell parties, “If resolution is possible, why fight in court?” A settlement is always better than a prolonged battle. Mediation can provide real access to justice, but only if litigants trust the system and if mediators are professional. Unless people are willing to opt for mediation, pendency will not come down.
SRS: With the growing and often irresponsible use of AI, what challenges does the judiciary face? AI undoubtedly has its advantages. But we are also seeing instances where even incorrect case laws are being cited. It is, therefore, equally important to regulate its misuse. The Supreme Court has already taken some initiatives in this regard. How do you view this challenge posed by AI?
JKM: First, the term “Artificial Intelligence” indicates that. AI is a tool created by humans. It doesn’t think or understand—it is trained by the human mind. It can collect data and pull facts, but it has no sense of context. It doesn’t know what actually happened in a case. It doesn’t know what a witness said, how they said it, or whether they were lying. It can’t read demeanour or grasp the human side of procedure. At best, it can compile facts and organize records. Justice has two parts—access when people come to court, and delivering justice when they leave. I don’t see AI handling that second part. It can never replace the mind, conscience, or judgment of a judge. This is why misuse must be checked. If someone uses AI to create false facts and files a case on that basis, it cannot be allowed. A judgment must rest on the record, the evidence, and on what the judge actually sees and hears. The chief justice of India has already spoken on this. We need regulations to ensure AI assists us, but never replaces human mindset and judgment.
SRS: In 2002, you were the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee of the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Today, we are seeing increasing indiscipline among lawyers. Recently, the Supreme Court even directed the Bar Council of India to conduct an audit of its disciplinary proceedings. In such a situation, who do you hold responsible for this indiscipline among lawyers? Do you believe that the Bar tends to be lenient towards its own members?
JKM: While I was an advocate, I served as the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee and as a member of the Bar Council in Madhya Pradesh. On discipline, we must also look in context of the litigant. An advocate’s misconduct is ultimately a breach of the trust a client places in the profession. Such incidents in courts are increasing. The Bar has a code of conduct because it is a noble profession. If an advocate violates it, the Disciplinary Committee decides whether it amounts to misconduct or not. Recently, following the judgment by a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, a committee was asked to be constituted and the Bar Council of India itself welcomed the directions. The intent was clear: the reputation of our institution must not be compromised by an act and conduct of a few advocates. In court, arguing forcefully on facts and law is understandable, but if it crosses the line, it must first be corrected by the Bar itself, otherwise the bench should respond. If we don’t act, it will damage the functioning and credibility of our institution.
SRS: The Bar has often been seen supporting the wrong things. For example, the Faizabad Bar recently passed a resolution to deny legal representation to the accused in the Ram Temple embezzlement case. Similarly, in several rape cases in the past, including the Delhi gang rape case, the Bar supported the refusal by advocates to represent the accused. Is the Bar, at times in such instances, shying away from its responsibility?
JKM: Your question is certainly very relevant. Our basic principle for dispensing justice is that no one should be condemned unheard. In an adversarial judicial process, if a person is not being represented, they are effectively losing their right of legal assistance in a court of law.
In my personal view, the Bar should introspect how such decisions are being taken. If someone refuses to represent then that must also be examined by members of the Bar. I should not comment on any specific case, but as a matter of principle—if you ask me—such decisions should not be taken in general by the Bar. Everyone deserves an opportunity to be heard. The court will decide what is right and what is wrong. If we punish someone purely on moral grounds, bypass due process of law and deny them their right, it will affect our institution and erode the very customs of the judicial process.
SRS: A lot of questions have been raised about judicial transfers. It is often alleged that political pressure influences them. There have even been instances of late-night transfers. Sometimes a judge in line for elevation to the Supreme Court is transferred to a High Court instead. In such cases, what kind of pressure does the Collegium face and how is it dealt with?
JKM: We don’t treat every piece of media information as correct. If something comes to us, that is if an issue crops up, we certainly look into it. In transfer matters, the primary test is whether it will affect the institution. If we find it will, the person may be moved from one place to another. But we do not transfer people under pressure, or for any other extraneous reason. What concerns us is this: if the situation continues, will it have an adverse or positive effect on the institution? That’s what we have to weigh. A transfer is not a punishment.
At times, what we consider internally may not be fully reflected on record, and sometimes it does come out. Usually, we don’t approach it that way. If an issue arises regarding character and it isn’t addressed, it can cause unrest and affect the institution. In such cases, we decide it’s better to move the person. Everything cannot be suppressed, nor can everything be ignored. But I can say this clearly: normally, we do not act under pressure. We make recommendations on the issue of transfer on its own merits.
SRS: There is an ongoing debate on freedom of expression versus self-regulation. Artists and comedians have been pulled up in some cases, and police in others, for misuse of law or crossing the line. With laws that allow booking someone for a cartoon or a remark against a chief minister, is the law being misused? And how does the court balance these issues when they come before it?
JKM: I won’t comment on any particular case. But I can share how I viewed it as a judge. Freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions. Laws and statutes have been made keeping those exceptions in mind. Similar provisions now also exist in the BNS and BNSS. When such a case comes to court, the first thing we look at its intent. Was this a genuine exercise of free speech, made in good faith to make a valid point? Or was it mala fide, intended to defame or cause harm to the institution? That is required to be examined carefully. These cases have to be decided in a way that we don’t shut down free speech abruptly and absolutely, otherwise Article 19 itself will be affected. At the same time, we cannot allow people who are doing such attempts deliberately only to defame or by crossing the limits. So in my view, it ultimately depends on the facts of each individual case.
SRS: My last question is on judicial overreach. The Judiciary is often criticized for it. Article 142 has been used to deliver “complete justice” in many cases. But there are also instances where courts have stepped into areas meant for the Executive. In your view, is the “Lakshman Rekha” actually being crossed? The government has maintained this.
JKM: I won’t comment on it generally. Let me give you an example of a recent matter that came before me. It involved the POCSO Act. A 16-17-year-old girl and a 23-24-year-old boy had fallen in love. An FIR was registered, a statement was made against him, and he was convicted. The case came before us. Meanwhile, the girl appeared in Court and said she wanted to go with him. Her first statement was not very clear. We ordered that her statement be recorded again. In that, she said she was married and that her previous marriage had broken because of the incident. In a third statement, she said she was married to the accused and now wanted to live with him. We now had both their statements on record, hence I directed Rs 10,00,000 as security/compensation, since they have married and she wants to live with him. Let me ask you, what is “complete justice” in this situation? If we don’t intervene, this man will go to jail for 10-20 years, she will face social ostracism will be left alone. We must consider the social impact too. When there is consensus—when both parties come before us and the girl herself says she wants to go with him—should we let him go, or send him back? We cannot do that. These are the kinds of cases where the court has to step in to deliver complete justice and exercise the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
The post “The Institution Above All” appeared first on India Legal.