Understanding ‘Bars Veto’ and its Hindrance to Judicial Reforms in India

Introduction

The Indian judiciary has consistently been subjected to criticism and scrutiny due to its delayed justice delivery system and backlog of pending cases. Despite various attempts to reform and improve the efficiency of the judiciary, these efforts have not yielded the desired results. One of the key reasons for this failure is the presence of ‘bars veto’ in the Indian legal system.

In this article, we will discuss the concept of ‘bars veto’ and how it hinders the implementation of judicial reforms in India.

Understanding ‘Bars Veto’

The term ‘bars veto’ refers to the ability of a group or institution to veto or obstruct the implementation of any reform or change in the legal system. In the context of the Indian judiciary, ‘bars veto’ is exercised by members of the legal profession, including lawyers and judges. These individuals have a significant influence and control over the functioning of the judiciary and are often resistant towards any changes that may affect their interests or way of functioning.

Impact of ‘Bars Veto’

The presence of ‘bars veto’ has a profound impact on the implementation of judicial reforms in India. It creates a resistance towards any changes or reforms that may directly or indirectly affect the legal profession. As a result, even though various committees and commissions have recommended several measures to improve the efficiency of the judiciary, their recommendations are often met with resistance from the legal fraternity.

One of the major areas where the impact of ‘bars veto’ is felt is in the establishment of a national judicial commission. The concept of a national judicial commission has been recommended by various committees, including the Law Commission of India and the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution. However, these recommendations have not been implemented due to the strong opposition from the Bar associations.

Another area where the influence of ‘bars veto’ is evident is in the appointment of judges. The current collegium system, where senior judges of the Supreme Court make recommendations for the appointment of judges in the higher judiciary, has been criticized for lack of transparency and accountability. However, any attempts to reform this system have been met with resistance from the legal fraternity.

Political Interference and ‘Bars Veto’

Apart from the resistance from the legal fraternity, the impact of ‘bars veto’ is also felt due to political interference in the functioning of the judiciary. The executive branch of the government, through its power to make appointments and transfers of judges, has the ability to exercise ‘bars veto’ over the judiciary. This often leads to a lack of independence of the judiciary and hinders its ability to function effectively.

Measures to Overcome ‘Bars Veto’

In order to ensure the smooth implementation of judicial reforms in India, it is essential to address the issue of ‘bars veto’. One of the ways to overcome this challenge is to increase the transparency and accountability of the judiciary. This can be achieved by establishing a clear process for appointment of judges, making the functioning of the judiciary more accessible to the public, and ensuring a proper system for redressal of grievances against judges.

Another approach could be to involve all stakeholders in the decision-making process for judicial reforms. This would not only help in addressing the concerns of the legal profession but also ensure that the interests of the public are not overlooked.

Conclusion

The concept of ‘bars veto’ has become a major obstacle in the implementation of judicial reforms in India. It not only hinders the effectiveness of the judiciary but also undermines the trust and faith of the public in the legal system. To ensure the timely and effective implementation of judicial reforms, it is crucial to address this issue and involve all stakeholders in the decision-making process. This would not only improve the efficiency of the judiciary but also strengthen the rule of law in the country.