The Judges’ Glass Ceiling

Context:

The Chief Justice of India's proposal to reward "super-performing" trial court judges to incentivize better performance within the judiciary has sparked discussions on the effectiveness and potential pitfalls of such an initiative.

Potential Pitfalls of Performance Incentivization:

• Unintended consequences: While the initiative aims to promote efficiency and excellence within the judiciary, caution is warranted due to Goodhart's Law, which warns against relying too heavily on a single metric for evaluation as individuals may adjust their behavior to meet specific criteria, potentially leading to unintended consequences.
• Cobra Effect: The historical example of the "Cobra Effect" during British rule in India illustrates the pitfalls of solely focusing on incentivizing performance. Offering a bounty on cobras to curb their population resulted in unintended consequences, as people bred cobras to capitalize on the lucrative reward.
• Quantity over quality: Goodhart's Law highlights the risk of judges prioritizing quantity over quality if evaluated solely based on quantitative measures like case disposal rates, potentially compromising the thorough examination of cases and creating a pressure to take extreme measures to demonstrate competence.

Existing Evaluation Mechanism and Its Gaps:

• Lack of scientific assessment: Currently, trial court judges are evaluated based on Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), focusing on metrics like case disposal rates, resolution of old cases, and quality of judgments. However, the existing framework lacks scientific assessment of time required for different case categories, recognition of administrative duties.
• Improvement: Instead of scrapping the current system, there is a need to improve. This includes considering the quality of judgments, adherence to ethics, and fairness and efficiency in handling cases.

Addressing the Glass Ceiling and Ensuring Equity:

• Limited opportunity: The existence of a glass ceiling for trial court judges aspiring to become High Court judges, with less than one-third of High Court judge positions being occupied by district court judges. This limited opportunity undermines the effectiveness of rewarding the best-performing trial court judges.
• Equal opportunities for trial court judges: Removing the glass ceiling must accompany any changes to the evaluation process to ensure equity and meritocracy within the judiciary.
• Robust evaluation system: The evaluation process should not be viewed as an end in itself but as a means to attract and retain talent in the judiciary.