by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
Four seniormost judges of Supreme Court addressed press conference in New Delhi on 12 Jan 2018. (HT photo)
New Delhi : Divisions at the top in the Supreme Court burst out in the open on Friday when four senior sitting judges took an unprecedented step of publicly accusing Chief Justice Dipak Misra of not strictly adhering to rules in assigning cases to appropriate benches which they said can create “doubt” about the integrity of the apex court.
Speaking to the media at the residence of Justice J. Chelameswar, the judges said the Supreme Court administration was “not in order” and released an undated letter they wrote to Justice Misra in which they conceded that the Chief Justice was the master of roster but this was “not a recognition of any superior authority, legal or factual of the Chief Justice over his colleagues”.
“It (press conference) is an extraordinary event in the history of judiciary and more particularly in this nation, even for this institution (Supreme Court). It is with no pleasure that we have been compelled to do this. Administration of the Supreme Court is not in order. Many things less than desirable have happened in the last few months. We owe a responsibility to the institution and the nation. We tried to collectively persuade the Chief Justice that certain things are not in order and remedial measures are necessary.
“Unfortunately our efforts have failed in convincing the Chief Justice of India to take steps to protect this institution,” Justice Chelameswar said at the hurriedly called press conference.
The four judges — Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Kurian Joseph and Madan B. Lokur besides Justice Chelameswar — did not refer to any particular matter the Chief Justice had decided in assigning benches. Asked specifically if they were upset over reference of the matter seeking a probe into the suspicious death of Special CBI Judge Brijgopal Harkishan Loya, Justice Gogoi said: “Yes.”
But in the seven-page letter they said they were not mentioning details only to avoid embarrassing the institution because “such departures have already damaged the images of this institution to some extent”.
The clash among the judges in the highest court also comes in the wake of a controversial order in November in which Justice Misra declared that the Chief Justice “is the master of the roster” having exclusive power to decide which case will go to which judge.
The CJI had given the order a day after a two-judge bench headed by Justice Chelameswar had passed an order that a five-judge bench of senior most judges in the apex court should be set up to consider an independent probe into a corruption case in which bribes were allegedly taken in the name of settling cases pending before Supreme Court judges.
Holding that the Chief Justice was only the first among equals, the four judges contended that in a matter of determination of roster there were well-settled and time-honoured conventions guiding the Chief Justice, be it the convention dealing with the strength of the bench required to deal with a particular case or the composition thereof.
“A necessary corollary to the above mentioned principle is the members of any multi-numbered judicial body, including this court, would not arrogate to themselves the authority to deal with and pronounce upon matters which ought to be heard by appropriate benches, both composition-wise and strength-wise with due regard to the roster fixed,” they wrote in the letter.
They said any departure from the two rules would not only lead to “unpleasant and undesirable consequences of creating doubt in the body politic about the integrity of the institution. Not to talk about the chaos that would result from such departure.
“We are sorry to say that, of late, the twin rules mentioned above have not been strictly adhered to. There have been instances where case having far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution had been assigned by the Chief Justices of this court selectively to the benches ‘of their preference’ without any rationale basis for such assignment. This must be guarded against at all cost.”
The four judges also touched upon another controversial issue, the Memorandum of Procedure on appointment of judges over which the Supreme Court had locked horns with the government.
They referred to the October 27 order in R.P. Luthra vs Union of India case to the affect that there should be no further delay in finalising the Memorandum of Procedure in the larger public interest.
“When the Memorandum of Procedure was the subject matter of a decision of a Constitution Bench of this court in Supreme Court, Advocates on Record Association and (Another) vs Union of India (2016), it is difficult to understand as to how any other bench could have dealt with the matter,” they told the Chief Justice.
Subsequent to this, detailed discussions were held by the collegium of five judges, including CJI, and the MoP was finalised and sent by the then CJI to the government in March 2017.
The government, the letter said, has not responded to the communication and “in view of this silence it must be taken that the MoP has been accepted by the government of India on the basis of the order of this court.
“There was, therefore, no occasion for the bench to make any observation with regard to the finalisation of the MoP or that that issue cannot linger on for an indefinite period.”
The judges said on July 4 last year, two members of a bench of seven judges that decided the case of Justice C.S. Karnan observed that there was a need to revisit the process of appointment of judges and to set up a mechanism for corrective measures other than impeachment. No observation was made by any of the seven judges with regard to the MoP.
“Any issue with regard to the Memorandum of Procedure should be discussed in the Chief Justices’ Conference and by the Full Court. Such a matter of grave importance, if at all required to be taken on the judicial side, should be dealt with by none other than a Constitution Bench.
Justice Chelameswar told the media that they were “convinced that unless this institution is protected and maintain its requirements, democracy will not survive in the country or any country.
“For survival of a democracy, it is said… the hallmark of a democracy is independent and impartial judges.”
“Since all our efforts failed… Even this morning, on a particular issue, we, four of us, went and met the Chief Justice with a specific request. Unfortunately we could not convince him. Therefore, we were left with no choice but to communicate with the nation to please take care of the institution and the nation.”
Justice Gogoi said they were “discharging debt to the nation that has got us here”.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : Overturning its earlier order, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said that playing the national anthem before screening movies in cinema halls was no longer mandatory.
The ruling by a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra followed an order of November 2016 when an apex court bench including Justice Misra had made the playing of the national anthem compulsory in cinema halls before movies are screened.
The Central government on Monday told the top court that it had set up an inter-ministerial committee to frame guidelines to decide the circumstances when the national anthem should be played or sung with decorum and suggested that the earlier order could be reviewed.
Attorney General K.K. Venugopal urged the court to modify its 2016 order substituting “shall” with “may” for the playing of the national anthem in cinema halls.
The 2016 order had said that all viewers in the cinema halls should stand up when the national anthem was played.
Disposing of the petition by Shyam Narayan Chouksey, the court allowed him to take his case to the inter-ministerial committee.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
By Parmod Kumar,
New Delhi : Taking forward the agenda set in 2017, the Supreme Court in 2018 is set to decide on a number of important issues — including the Ayodhya title dispute — that will have a bearing on the country’s politics, economics, inter-state relations and the conflict over the national capital’s governance.
With pendency of over 55,000 cases, the number of fresh cases that will reach the top court are unlikely to be less than what they were in 2017 — or in the preceding years. The likelihood of the pendency coming down is apparently not bright as the court, by its own calendar, will be working for 190 days in 2018.
Besides the fresh cases and pending matters, the top court has a number of issues to be decided by the constitution bench that are already scheduled for hearing, including the Ayodhya title dispute, the challenges to the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act and the legality of the demonetisation decision, as also whether a politician holding a public office can comment on a matter being investigated by an agency of the State.
Another issue that is being examined by the constitution bench is the challenge to the new privacy policy of the WhatsApp online messaging service.
The bench is seized of the challenge to the Delhi High Court’s September 23, 2016, order allowing WhatsApp to roll out its new privacy policy but stopping it from sharing the data of its users collected up to September 25, 2016, with Facebook or any other related company.
Also referred to the constitution bench is the challenge to Tamil Nadu regulation paving way for the Jali Kattu bullfight sport — an issue the court wants to settle once and for all.
Yet another issue that a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra referred to the constitution bench is women in the 10-50 age-group being prohibited from entering Sabarimala, a temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa in Kerala.
The year 2018 will also see the top court pronouncing a spate of constitution bench judgments on the powers of the Delhi government vis-a-vis the Centre-appointed Lt Governor in the administration of the national capital, and the plea for making a “living will” (passive euthanasia) authorising the withdrawal of all life support systems if, in the opinion of the doctors, a patient has reached an irreversible stage of terminal illness.
Along with this, there will be a verdict on whether the top court can look into or rely on a parliamentary committee report for deciding an issue before it.
This issue of far-reaching significance is rooted in a public suit questioning the safety and efficacy of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that is used for preventing cervical cancer.
Petitioner Kalpans Mehta, a medical doctor, while contending that the HPV vaccine was “unproven and hazardous”, had relied on the 72nd report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in support of her contention. A drug company has opposed the petition.
The year will also witness the outcome of the top court’s maiden forays adjudicating the Cauvery river water-sharing dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. A three-judge bench had heard the matter despite the Centre contending that the court can’t adjudicate on the award of a tribunal on an inter-state river water dispute.
The matter was heard for 29 days spread over eight months.
For engaging with its heavy calendar, some of the matters may have to be heard during the summer vacation that would commence from May 21 — an initiative earlier taken by former Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar last year.
(Parmod Kumar can be contacted at saneel2010@gmail.com)
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
By Parmod Kumar,
New Delhi : The Supreme Court stood out in 2017 for protecting and advancing the rights of citizens in more ways than one, but primarily by empowering them against any intrusion of their privacy by the State or the private sector as it elevated the right to privacy as a fundamental right.
The Supreme Court will be quoted not just for its verdict expanding the scope of the Right to Life by including within its ambit the sacrosanct Right to Privacy, but it will also be counted for its pronouncements that instant triple talaq was unconstitutional and sex with a minor wife in a child marriage amounted to rape.
The Year 2017 also saw the top court’s collegium finally putting in the public domain its deliberations on the appointment, transfer and elevation of High Court and Supreme Court judges with an explanation as to why a particular name was recommended or not.
This was viewed by some as the collegium throwing down the gauntlet for the executive, which is insisting on a provision in the Memorandum of Procedure (on appointments) that it can block a recommendation on the ground of national security but without elaborating on this.
The apex court did make serious efforts in making the government act on curbing advertisements and information on sex determination techniques available on the Internet but did not succeed to the extent that was expected.
In the end, virtually nothing was achieved in the matter as, even after a decade, says senior counsel Sanjay Parikh, and despite several court directions, the offending advertisements continue to appear on the Internet in violation of PNDT Act, resulting in a skewed girlchild ratio in some northern states.
All this apart, there is hardly an area impacting the life of the common people that escaped the top court’s scanner, be it clean air to breathe, making politics free of tainted politicians, baring the chilling insensitivity of the powers that be denying relief to the farmers faced with drought or not getting a just and reasonable minimum support price for their agriculture produce — leading to suicides.
Describing the 2017 as an “eventful year” with top court “standing up to the challenge” in addressing the issues of “great promise”, senior counsel C.A. Sundram said that Supreme Court has reaffirmed itself as the “final guardian” on any matter that affects the public at large.
“The court has also clearly established that with regards to any matter that affects the public at large they are the final guardians and have acted as a sentinel to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens,” Sundram told IANS.
“The decision in right to privacy is a sterling example,” said Sundram, a view also shared by activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan and senior counsel Colin Gonsalves, well-known for espousing social causes.
“I think the Supreme Court has done extraordinarily well on social issues — but only up to a point,” said Gonsalves.
The top court’s pronouncements to cleanse the legislatures of tainted law makers that started nearly a decade-and-a-half ago and mandating the disclosure of the assets and criminal antecedents continued in 2017 when it proposed setting up of courts to exclusively try criminal cases against the law makers and politicians.
It approved the setting of 12 exclusive courts to fast-track the trial of 1,571 pending cases against lawmakers. “Let us not get bogged down… let them set up 12 courts… It is not an end of it. Starting something is difficult.”
Recognised the world over for its role in protecting the environment, the Supreme Court acted decisively as it prohibited the registration of vehicles that do not meet BS-IV emission standards from April 1, 2017, banned the use of pet-coke and furnace oil in the National Capital Region and, above all, stopped the sale of fire crackers during Diwali celebrations — a step which earned it both laurels — for relatively less polluted post Diwali morning — and brickbats, with some equating the ban on the sale of fire crackers as an assault on the Hindu religion.
The top court also came to the rescue of home buyers who have been deprived of their rightful dwellings years beyond the due date by the big real estate companies.
Besides achievements, the top court had its troubled spots too — its tussle with the executive on one hand and with a section of bar on the other.
However, when the government sought to criticise the top court for its pro-active approach and stepping into its policy-making domain, Chief Justice Dipak Misra was more than candid saying that the “protections of the fundamental rights of every citizen was a sacrosanct duty of the judiciary conferred by the Constitution”.
The apex court seemingly succeeded in taming a section of the the bar seeking an SIT probe into the allegations of graft vis-a-vis a medical college involving a retired judge of the Orissa High Court, but not without its image taking a blow as it observed that its image has been damaged as “unnecessary doubts about the integrity of the institution have been created”.
(Parmod Kumar can be contacted at saneel2010@gmail.com)
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Friday imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on an NGO seeking directions for enforcement of country-wide prohibition of liquor – a provision under Article 47 of the Constitution’s Directive Principle of State Policy which calls for endeavour to prohibit intoxicating drinks and drugs harmful to health.
Describing the plea by Visakhapatanam-based Chaitanya Sravanthi as frivolous, the bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha imposed the cost on the NGO, which had moved the court under under Article 32 of the Constitution in public interest.
At the outset of the hearing, the bench asked the counsel for the petitioner to read the Constitution’s Article 37 which says that the provisions contained under the Directive Principle of State Policy (DPSP) “shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws”.
The NGO had sought the enforcement of Article 47 under the Directive Principle of State Policy which says, ” … the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.”
It had sought the direction for the inclusion of alcohol in the list of prohibited products and framing of policy for the implementation of the Article 47 in all the states, contending that due to the lack of uniform national policy, similar to tobacco ban, drinking of alcohol was increasing day by day resulting in deaths due to related health problems, increase in crime, financial loss to the people especially daily labourers.
—IANS
