Former Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, engages in an insightful discussion with Prafulla Ketkar, Editor Organiser, in Surat Literature festival organised from January 17 to January 19, 2025. Justice Gogoi shares his views on critical issues such as judicial reforms, the backlog of cases, the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), and the role of the judiciary in shaping India’s future. He offers a candid assessment of the challenges facing the Indian legal system and the necessary steps required to ensure efficiency and fairness. Excerpts:
You mentioned judicial reforms. If you could suggest three key reforms, what would they be?
You don’t need three reforms—just one. Get good people to become judges. If you have good people in the judiciary, the rest will fall into place.
Judges currently enter the system by passing an examination and undergoing a short interview. However, there is no assessment of their character, compassion, or sense of justice. This needs to change. Increase the number of judges from 24,000 to 1,00,000 and ensure that they are selected based on merit and integrity.
Beyond good people, do we also need better laws?
Laws alone won’t solve the problem. Even a bad law can work if implemented by good people, whereas even the best laws fail under bad administration. The recent amendments to the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, and Evidence Act include positive steps such as community service for minor offenses and DNA-based evidence collection. These reforms are promising, but their success depends on those who implement them.
There are more than 3.5 crore pending cases in the Courts. If we are to move forward, what would be your recommendation as former Chief Justice of India to address this backlog and restore common people’s confidence in the judiciary?
That is a critical issue. When I demitted office in 2019, the pending cases were around three crore. Today, it stands at five crore. No Chief Justice before me has entered public life post-retirement. I consciously chose to do so because I believe engagement with the system is necessary. The backlog is solvable, but it requires serious intent. Many cases remain pending due to technicalities or lack of interest from litigants. A significant portion of the backlog consists of criminal cases. For example, in the Allahabad High Court, judges are still hearing 40-year-old criminal appeals. This means that if a person was convicted at the age of 30, they are now around 75 to 80 years old and still waiting for justice.
A systematic review is required to identify cases that remain relevant and those that have lost significance due to time. A large portion of the backlog consists of dead cases, which can be closed. I have suggested that the Chief Justice of India take the initiative to address this problem.
What steps can be taken in the next 25 years so that by 2047, the Indian judicial system is more efficient?
If the system continues as it is, there will be serious difficulties. Either the judiciary reforms itself or it risks becoming obsolete. The legislature must consider a framework to close cases that have been pending for decades with no progress. Some Roman emperors burned all law books and rewrote them. While I am not suggesting something as extreme, we must be willing to take bold steps. High courts and the Supreme Court should authorize the closure of cases that cannot be meaningfully adjudicated.
“The recent amendments to the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, and Evidence Act include positive steps such as community service for minor offenses and DNA-based evidence collection”
— Ranjan Gogoi, Former Chief Justice of India
Criminal trials must be completed within three to four years, at most. Today, in states like Uttar Pradesh, appeals remain stuck for decades. A person convicted by the trial court may wait 20 years before the high court even hears the appeal. If the high court later finds them innocent, what compensation can be given for those lost years?
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has been a long-debated topic. How do you see its implementation?
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a very progressive piece of legislation that aims to replace diverse customary practices that have evolved into law. There is no dispute that it is a constitutional goal. It is mentioned in Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, and one day, we must achieve it.
I see the UCC as an important step towards national integration, ensuring social justice and gender justice. However, it does not conflict with Article 25 and 26, which guarantee the right to freedom of religion. As you yourself pointed out, the UCC will govern civil matters such as adoption, marriage, divorce, and inheritance—it has nothing to do with religious practices. The UCC has worked wonderfully in Goa, where the Portuguese Civil Code is in place, and there is no controversy. This shows that a uniform law is both practical and beneficial.
However, implementation must be done thoughtfully. My suggestion is that the government and lawmakers should focus on consensus-building. There is a lot of misinformation about the UCC, with some groups portraying it as a threat to religious freedoms. This is simply not true. The Supreme Court has repeatedly raised the issue of the UCC in multiple cases, starting from Shah Bano to more recent judgments. The highest court of this land has consistently stated that India must move towards implementing a Uniform Civil Code.
A nation cannot afford to have fragmented laws governing civil matters. It complicates legal proceedings and adds to the judicial backlog. Additionally, it affects the fundamental rights of individuals, particularly in matters of gender justice. The only way forward is for Parliament to take gradual steps toward its implementation while ensuring proper education and sensitization of the public.
That being said, I urge lawmakers to take their time and not rush into it. The focus should be on building consensus and dispelling misconceptions. While some sections of society may always resist change, the majority will support it if they are properly informed.
Coming to a sensitive issue—you are from Assam, a state that has faced significant challenges with illegal migration. What are your thoughts on how India should handle this issue?
Sitting judges do not discuss pending cases in public forums, and retired judges should not comment on their own judgments. I authored the NRC judgment and supervised the case for seven years, passing over 700 orders. Given this, I will refrain from commenting further on the issue. However, I hope those in charge take inspiration from the efforts made to address illegal migration.
