The minister's remarks at a Republic Day function organised at the Tis Hazari courts complex here came amid a tug of war between the judiciary and the executive.
Tag: Judges
-
Supreme Court split on appointment of four new judges
Express News Service
NEW DELHI: With less than a month until CJI UU Lalit’s retirement and two of the five-member Supreme Court Collegium opposing a proposal to recommend four new judges, including a Supreme Court lawyer, to the top court via written note rather than a formal meeting, Chief Justice of India U U Lalit is said to have written to them again, requesting reconsideration of their position.
The names recommended by Lalit to the four other members are three sitting HC chief justices (Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, Patna High Court Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Manipur High Court Chief Justice PV Sanjay Kumar) and Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan. Senior Advocate KV Vishwanathan would go on to become the CJI in August 2030 if his name is recommended by collegium and cleared by the government.
Last week, Lalit in an unprecedented move, had initiated the proposal for the appointment of SC judges by writing a letter to the fellow members in the Collegium, Justices DY Chandrachud, SK Kaul, S Abdul Nazeer and KM Joseph, requesting them to grant their consent to the names proposed by him.
The letter which was received by the judges on Saturday, according to people aware of the development, pointed out that the names that were being proposed were deliberated upon in previous Collegium meetings. The letter was written after the Collegium meeting which was scheduled for September 30 and could not take place due to unavailability of Justice Chandrachud who held the court till 9:10 PM.
The meeting which was scheduled for September 30th was supposedly Lalit’s last collegium meeting SC went into recess for Dussehra break and will reopen on October 10 and the one month mark would prevent Lalit is set to retire on November 8, 2022 from making recommendations for judicial appointments due to the appointment process for his successor being in gear.
On receipt of the letter, according to the sources the two collegium members, while strongly objecting to CJI’s move, had said that appointment to the high constitutional office and as judges of the highest court should never be done through circulation. According to reports, the two members objected only to the manner in which the recommendations were initiated, not to the merits of the individuals recommended. A fourth judge was said to be away and said that he would respond when he returned.
Further, according to sources familiar with the development, SC collegium headed by CJI UU Lalit in a first had decided to start evaluating judges based on their performance before recommending their elevation to the top court. On September 26, the Collegium recommended to the Centre elevation of Bombay HC’s Chief Justice Dipankar Datta as SC judge.
CJI Lalit, who is set to retire on November 8, has very little time on his hands. The government writes to the outgoing CJI about a month before his retirement, and the CJI, in turn, recommends the name of the most senior judge as the successor. When a new name is proposed, the incumbent CJI usually refrains from making decisions on judicial appointments and instead defers to the new CJI.
NEW DELHI: With less than a month until CJI UU Lalit’s retirement and two of the five-member Supreme Court Collegium opposing a proposal to recommend four new judges, including a Supreme Court lawyer, to the top court via written note rather than a formal meeting, Chief Justice of India U U Lalit is said to have written to them again, requesting reconsideration of their position.
The names recommended by Lalit to the four other members are three sitting HC chief justices (Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, Patna High Court Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Manipur High Court Chief Justice PV Sanjay Kumar) and Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan. Senior Advocate KV Vishwanathan would go on to become the CJI in August 2030 if his name is recommended by collegium and cleared by the government.
Last week, Lalit in an unprecedented move, had initiated the proposal for the appointment of SC judges by writing a letter to the fellow members in the Collegium, Justices DY Chandrachud, SK Kaul, S Abdul Nazeer and KM Joseph, requesting them to grant their consent to the names proposed by him.
The letter which was received by the judges on Saturday, according to people aware of the development, pointed out that the names that were being proposed were deliberated upon in previous Collegium meetings. The letter was written after the Collegium meeting which was scheduled for September 30 and could not take place due to unavailability of Justice Chandrachud who held the court till 9:10 PM.
The meeting which was scheduled for September 30th was supposedly Lalit’s last collegium meeting SC went into recess for Dussehra break and will reopen on October 10 and the one month mark would prevent Lalit is set to retire on November 8, 2022 from making recommendations for judicial appointments due to the appointment process for his successor being in gear.
On receipt of the letter, according to the sources the two collegium members, while strongly objecting to CJI’s move, had said that appointment to the high constitutional office and as judges of the highest court should never be done through circulation. According to reports, the two members objected only to the manner in which the recommendations were initiated, not to the merits of the individuals recommended. A fourth judge was said to be away and said that he would respond when he returned.
Further, according to sources familiar with the development, SC collegium headed by CJI UU Lalit in a first had decided to start evaluating judges based on their performance before recommending their elevation to the top court. On September 26, the Collegium recommended to the Centre elevation of Bombay HC’s Chief Justice Dipankar Datta as SC judge.
CJI Lalit, who is set to retire on November 8, has very little time on his hands. The government writes to the outgoing CJI about a month before his retirement, and the CJI, in turn, recommends the name of the most senior judge as the successor. When a new name is proposed, the incumbent CJI usually refrains from making decisions on judicial appointments and instead defers to the new CJI.
-
Judges can best handle adoption: Parliamentary panel
Express News Service
NEW DELHI: It is not appropriate for an administrative authority, instead of a judicial body, to issue adoption orders, a Parliamentary panel has noted. The Standing Committee’s views are at variance with the Juvenile Justice Amendment Act, 2021, which was amended to empower district magistrates (DMs) to issue adoption orders. Before this, the power to issue adoption orders was vested in the judiciary.
It was in July last year that the Parliament passed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill, 2021. The amendment also entrusts the DM to ensure that childcare institutions comply with the provisions of the Act.
However, the Standing Committee, which tabled its recommendations recently on ‘Guardianship and Adoption Laws’ felt that judges have competence and experience to determine whether adoption is in the best interest of the child.
The panel, headed by BJP leader Sushil Kumar Modi, said since the new system is yet to be tried and tested, the Committee recommends that training should be imparted to DMs, ADMs and divisional commissioners in this regard. It also told the Ministry of Women and Child Development to review the functioning of the new system and present a report to the Committee.
The Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances and Law and Justice, also noted that while deciding on adoption, courts ensure that necessary procedures have been complied with. It has the power to conduct an inquiry of the child and adoptive parents. The Union government’s move to hand over the responsibility to DMs has invited criticism from groups working for children’s welfare.
“It’s concerning the manner in which the amendment was pushed through to hand over power from the judiciary to the executive. DMs are not equipped enough to decide whether the child should be given for adoption,” she said.
Senior lawyer Neela Gokhale said under Juvenile Justice Act too, adoption cases are heard by either a district court, family court or a city civil court. “If there is a breakdown in the family where the child has been adopted, the child has to be rehabilitated. These processes are enforced by the court,” Gokhale said, adding that the government should increase the number of family courts.
Recommendations of Parliamentary panel
The new legislation should cover LGBTQ community
New Legislation should avoid using the term ‘illegitimate’ and adoption law should be same for all children whether born within or out of wedlock.
There is a need to bring out a uniform and comprehensive legislation that is more transparent, accountable, verifiable, less bureaucratic and applicable to all irrespective of religion
It is important to prevent illegal and informal adoptions so that a larger pool of children is available for placing them in adoption with families registering under JJ Act
Monthly meeting chaired by the DM should be held in every district to ensure that orphan and abandoned children are produced before Child Welfare Committee and made available for adoption at the earliestNEW DELHI: It is not appropriate for an administrative authority, instead of a judicial body, to issue adoption orders, a Parliamentary panel has noted. The Standing Committee’s views are at variance with the Juvenile Justice Amendment Act, 2021, which was amended to empower district magistrates (DMs) to issue adoption orders. Before this, the power to issue adoption orders was vested in the judiciary.
It was in July last year that the Parliament passed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill, 2021. The amendment also entrusts the DM to ensure that childcare institutions comply with the provisions of the Act.
However, the Standing Committee, which tabled its recommendations recently on ‘Guardianship and Adoption Laws’ felt that judges have competence and experience to determine whether adoption is in the best interest of the child.
The panel, headed by BJP leader Sushil Kumar Modi, said since the new system is yet to be tried and tested, the Committee recommends that training should be imparted to DMs, ADMs and divisional commissioners in this regard. It also told the Ministry of Women and Child Development to review the functioning of the new system and present a report to the Committee.
The Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances and Law and Justice, also noted that while deciding on adoption, courts ensure that necessary procedures have been complied with. It has the power to conduct an inquiry of the child and adoptive parents. The Union government’s move to hand over the responsibility to DMs has invited criticism from groups working for children’s welfare.
“It’s concerning the manner in which the amendment was pushed through to hand over power from the judiciary to the executive. DMs are not equipped enough to decide whether the child should be given for adoption,” she said.
Senior lawyer Neela Gokhale said under Juvenile Justice Act too, adoption cases are heard by either a district court, family court or a city civil court. “If there is a breakdown in the family where the child has been adopted, the child has to be rehabilitated. These processes are enforced by the court,” Gokhale said, adding that the government should increase the number of family courts.
Recommendations of Parliamentary panel
The new legislation should cover LGBTQ community
New Legislation should avoid using the term ‘illegitimate’ and adoption law should be same for all children whether born within or out of wedlock.
There is a need to bring out a uniform and comprehensive legislation that is more transparent, accountable, verifiable, less bureaucratic and applicable to all irrespective of religion
It is important to prevent illegal and informal adoptions so that a larger pool of children is available for placing them in adoption with families registering under JJ Act
Monthly meeting chaired by the DM should be held in every district to ensure that orphan and abandoned children are produced before Child Welfare Committee and made available for adoption at the earliest -
Govt forwards names of nine judges recommended for Supreme Court elevation to President
By PTI
NEW DELHI: The government has forwarded nine names recommended by the Supreme Court collegium for appointment of judges in the top court to the President for final approval and a call is expected to be taken “shortly”, sources in the government said on Thursday.
With a sanctioned strength of 34 judges, the Supreme Court as of now has ten vacancies.
In a first, the Supreme Court Collegium had last week recommended for appointment to the apex court three women judges, including Justice B V Nagarathna who will be in line to be the first woman Chief Justice of India (CJI) in September 2027 if she gets the final nod.
Besides Justice Nagarathna, the third senior-most judge of the Karnataka High Court, the other women judges whose names have been recommended are Justice Hima Kohli, the Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court, and Justice Bela M Trivedi, the fifth senior-most judge of the Gujarat High Court.
Justice Kohli retires on September 1.
Asked what if her warrant of appointment could not be issued before that date, the sources said such a situation may not arise.
While high court judges retire at the age of 62, the retirement age of Supreme Court judges is 65.
They said a final call on the elevation of the nine names recommended would be taken “shortly”.
All 9 names recommended by the Collegium for elevation to Supreme Court cleared by the Government, warrant of appointment can be issued today. This paves way for India to see it’s first woman Chief Justice of India in 2027 @NewIndianXpress @gsvasu_TNIE
— kanupsarda (@sardakanu_TNIE) August 26, 2021
Once the names are cleared their warrants of appointment will be issued and the government will then issue a notification announcing the decision.Besides them, names of Justice C T Ravikumar of the Kerala High Court, and Justice M M Sundresh of the Madras High Court were recommended by the Collegium.
Senior advocate and former Additional Solicitor General P S Narasimha, whose name if cleared, would became the sixth lawyer to be elevated to the apex court bench directly from the Bar.
The chief justices of different high courts whose names have been recommended are Justices Abhay Shreeniwas Oka (Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court), Vikram Nath (Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court) and Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari (Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court).
-
Supreme Court judges, family members to get vaccine jabs on Tuesday
By ANI
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court judges and their family members will be administered their first jabs of COVID-19 vaccines on Tuesday, according to the SC Registry sources.Earlier, it was reported that the judges of the apex court would get the option to choose between Covaxin or Covishield vaccines.
Later, the Union Health Ministry, in a clarification, said the judges have not been given any such option to choose between both the vaccines, adding that it will be conducted entirely through Co-Win system.
“The government facility, Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) dispensary, within the Supreme Court will be used for the vaccination purpose,” the Ministry said.
The retired judges of the apex court and their family members will also be vaccinated tomorrow.
The second phase of the nationwide Covid-19 vaccination drive for age-appropriate population groups began today. Everyone above 60 years of age and those over 45 years with comorbidities will be able to get the COVID-19 vaccine for free at government facilities and for Rs 250 at many private hospitals.
Several politicians including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and Odisha Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik, received the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine today.
-
Editorial: Conspiracy to construct the Islamic Republic of India by Congress now for securing power by secession-ism and fundamentalism
Rahul Gandhi was born in Christian family in Italy. There is Vatican City right there. This is the reason that Rahul Gandhi is with the hand of Christian missionaries. At the time of the Gujarat assembly election, the Christian cleric had given a fatwa that the Nationalist Party BJP should not be voted. Similarly, during the Karnataka assembly elections, the Christian Archbishop had issued a fatwa that the BJP should not be voted.
Similarly, the fundamentalists and separatists are also in the hands of the Congress. The Congress is a supporter of the Hurriyat. With the help of Pakistan, he is looking at the power of unleashing India and trying to grab power.
Under the conspiracy, today Congress has supported the conspiracy the establishment of the Shariat Courts to set up separate courts for Muslims, and the fundamentalist Muslim Personal Law Board has supported the Congress.
Actress Koina Mitra has given the people who advocate Sharia law!
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board is now planning to open Darul-kaja-ie Shariat court in all the districts of the country to resolve issues according to Islamic laws. This proposal will be presented in the meeting of the Muslim Personal Law Board in Delhi on July 15 for discussion. The Law Board is considered to be the largest organization of Muslims in the country.
On the other hand, against the ruling of the Muslim Law Board from BJP to SP, they are standing against this decision. BJP spokesperson Meenakshi Lekhi also blamed the All India Muslim Personal Law Board on this matter. “You can discuss religious matters, but the judiciary is important in this country. Sharia courts have no place in the villages and districts of the country. The courts of the country work under the law. Our country is not the Islamic Republic of India. ”
This is the case – it is significant that the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) had said that it would consider increasing lawyers to introduce lawyers, judges and common people to Shariah law.
Since Rahul Gandhi has been the President of the Congress since then, he has been forming the form of openly polynomial Brahmin and dividing Hindus and becoming the biggest supporter of radicalism and separatism. Following the policy of divide and rule like the British, they have dreamed of becoming the Yen-Ken-Rukt Prime Minister.
We hope that they will definitely dream of becoming Prime Minister, but do not try to dissolve the unity of India.