Rajya Sabha member and former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi criticised the judiciary and said if one goes to Indian courts they would have to wait endlessly for a verdict, reported India Today.
Stating that the judiciary in India is in a "ramshackle" state, former CJI said, "If you go to court, you don't get a verdict, all you do is wash your dirty linen."
"How important the judiciary is as a constitutional body need not be emphasised," Gogoi said at India Today Conclave East on February 11. "You want a 5 trillion-dollar economy, but your judiciary is ramshackle."
He also said that the subordinate courts in India received about 60 lakh additional cases in 2020. The figure of pending cases in High Courts have increased by about three lakh and the Supreme Court admitted 6,000-7,000 new cases in the previous year, Gogoi said.
Gogoi said that there are about 4 crore pending cases in the subordinate courts, over 44 lakh in the High Courts, and nearly 70,000 in the Supreme Court.
"The roadmap I have in mind is to have the right man for the job," he said. "You don't appoint judges the same way you appoint officers in the government. To judge is a full-time commitment. It is a passion. There are no working hours. It is a 24/7 job."
Gogoi made the comments while replying to a question about allegations raised by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra. Moitra had questioned the sanctity of the judiciary while raising sexual harassment allegations against the former CJI.
She had also alleged that Gogoi was made an MP after he ruled in favour of Hindus in the Ayodhya dispute and had denied an inquiry against PM Modi's government in allegations related to the purchase of fighter jets.
Replying to the allegations, Gogoi asked, "Does a former judge ever get cowed down by attacks?"
"If you are making allegations, at least name the person," the former CJI said. "I have a name and I deserve to be named. Those allegations are wrong in facts."
Responding to the allegations of sexual misconduct against him, Gogoi said: "No discussion about the judiciary is complete without reference to that case."