Tag: Judiciary

  • SC slams ex-IPL commissioner Lalit Modi, directs him to tender unconditional apology

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday came down heavily on ex-IPL Commissioner Lalit Modi over his remarks against the judiciary in a social media post, and directed him to tender an unconditional apology.

    Observing that Lalit Modi is not above the law and institution, a bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar said it was not satisfied with the counter affidavit filed by him.

    The top court directed the ex-IPL commissioner to tender an apology on social media and also in leading national newspapers.

    The apex court also directed him to file an affidavit before it tendering an apology and stating that in future no such posts be made in the future which would be tantamount, even remotely, tarnishing the image of the Indian judiciary.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday came down heavily on ex-IPL Commissioner Lalit Modi over his remarks against the judiciary in a social media post, and directed him to tender an unconditional apology.

    Observing that Lalit Modi is not above the law and institution, a bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar said it was not satisfied with the counter affidavit filed by him.

    The top court directed the ex-IPL commissioner to tender an apology on social media and also in leading national newspapers.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    The apex court also directed him to file an affidavit before it tendering an apology and stating that in future no such posts be made in the future which would be tantamount, even remotely, tarnishing the image of the Indian judiciary.

  • Delay in judges’ appointment affects principle of seniority, says collegium

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: Taking a strong exception to the Centre withholding or overlooking the names recommended for appointment as judges, the Supreme Court collegium on Wednesday said it is “a matter of grave concern” as it disturbs the seniority of candidates.

    The collegium asked the government to elevate those recommended earlier without further delay, even as it recommended four more names for the Madras High Court in a resolution dated March 21.

    The collegium, headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, recommended the elevation of district judges R Sakthivel, P Dhanabal, Chinnasamy Kumarappan and K Rajasekar to the Madras High Court.

    The collegium said the elevation of Rajasekar, which was recommended on Wednesday, should only be notified after that of Neelakandan. “Otherwise, Rajasekar, who is a judicial officer and younger than Neelakandan, would rank senior to Neelakandan. Such a deviation in seniority would be unfair and against the settled convention,” the collegium’s resolution said.

    Recalling that the elevation of advocates R John Sathyan and Ramaswamy Neelakandan to the Madras HC was reiterated on January 17, the collegium urged the Centre to do the needful for their appointment.

    Earlier, the Centre had returned advocate Sathyan’s file as he had shared an article critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and another post regarding the suicide of a medical aspirant in 2017.

    Referring to the Intelligence Bureau’s report that he enjoyed a good personal and professional image, the collegium said the posts made by Sathyan would not impinge on his suitability, character or integrity to be a high court judge.

    “In this view, the Collegium is of the considered opinion that R. John Sathyan is fit and suitable for being appointed as a Judge of the Madras High Court. The Collegium, therefore, resolves to reiterate its recommendation dated February 16, 2022, for appointment of R. John Sathyan, advocate, as a Judge of the Madras High Court,” said the January 17 resolution.

    The Collegium’s resolution on March 21 stated that the recommendation made by the High Court Collegium on August 10, 2022, for the appointment of the four judicial officers as judges of the Madras High Court has the concurrence of the chief minister and the governor of Tamil Nadu.

    NEW DELHI: Taking a strong exception to the Centre withholding or overlooking the names recommended for appointment as judges, the Supreme Court collegium on Wednesday said it is “a matter of grave concern” as it disturbs the seniority of candidates.

    The collegium asked the government to elevate those recommended earlier without further delay, even as it recommended four more names for the Madras High Court in a resolution dated March 21.

    The collegium, headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, recommended the elevation of district judges R Sakthivel, P Dhanabal, Chinnasamy Kumarappan and K Rajasekar to the Madras High Court.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    The collegium said the elevation of Rajasekar, which was recommended on Wednesday, should only be notified after that of Neelakandan. “Otherwise, Rajasekar, who is a judicial officer and younger than Neelakandan, would rank senior to Neelakandan. Such a deviation in seniority would be unfair and against the settled convention,” the collegium’s resolution said.

    Recalling that the elevation of advocates R John Sathyan and Ramaswamy Neelakandan to the Madras HC was reiterated on January 17, the collegium urged the Centre to do the needful for their appointment.

    Earlier, the Centre had returned advocate Sathyan’s file as he had shared an article critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and another post regarding the suicide of a medical aspirant in 2017.

    Referring to the Intelligence Bureau’s report that he enjoyed a good personal and professional image, the collegium said the posts made by Sathyan would not impinge on his suitability, character or integrity to be a high court judge.

    “In this view, the Collegium is of the considered opinion that R. John Sathyan is fit and suitable for being appointed as a Judge of the Madras High Court. The Collegium, therefore, resolves to reiterate its recommendation dated February 16, 2022, for appointment of R. John Sathyan, advocate, as a Judge of the Madras High Court,” said the January 17 resolution.

    The Collegium’s resolution on March 21 stated that the recommendation made by the High Court Collegium on August 10, 2022, for the appointment of the four judicial officers as judges of the Madras High Court has the concurrence of the chief minister and the governor of Tamil Nadu.

  • Objective of Collegium is to protect judiciary’s independence: CJI Chandrachud

    The CJI also noted that the judiciary has to be protected from outside influences if it has to be independent. NEW DELHI: Not every system is perfect but this is the best system available, Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud said on Saturday while defending the Collegium system of judges appointing judges, a major bone of contention between the government and judiciary.

    Speaking at the India Today Conclave, the CJI said the judiciary has to be protected from outside influences if it has to be independent.

    “Not every system is perfect but this is the best system we have developed. But the object was to protect the independence of the judiciary, which is a cardinal value. We have to insulate the judiciary from outside influences if the judiciary has to be independent,” Chandrachud said.

    The CJI also responded to Law Minister Kiren Rijiju voicing displeasure over the Supreme Court Collegium revealing the government’s reasons for not approving the names recommended by it for appointment as judges of constitutional courts.

    “What is wrong about having a difference in perception? But, I have to deal with such differences with a sense of robust constitutional statesmanship. I do not want to join issues with the law minister, we are bound to have differences of perceptions,” the CJI said.

    ALSO READ | In defense of the collegium

    Rijiju has been quite vocal against the Collegium system and once even called it “alien to our Constitution.”

    Justice Chandrachud said there is absolutely no pressure from the government on how to decide cases.

    “In my 23 years of being a judge, no one has told me how to decide a case. There is absolutely no pressure from the government. The Election Commission judgment is proof that there is no pressure on the judiciary,” CJI said.

    The Supreme Court had recently ruled the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and election commissioners will be done by the President on the advise of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India.

    ALSO READ | SC order on EC appointments: Rijiju invokes ‘Lakshman Rekha’

  • Judges are not elected, so can’t be replaced but people are watching them: Rijiju 

    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.

  • Need to change image of judiciary, CJI DY Chandrachud urges courts to dispose of oldest cases 

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: Stressing the need to change the image of the judiciary which is based on the classical movie phrase, “tareekh pe tareekh”, CJI DY Chandrachud on Friday urged the court establishments to identify and target disposing of oldest cases in the next few months. 

    Speaking at the inauguration of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Academy, CJI said, “As we think about the access of justice, we need to change the image of the judiciary which is based on the classical movie phrase, “tareekh pe tareekh”. A starting point can be for all of us in each court establishment, be it high court or district court to identify the oldest case and the number of cases in the 10-year period after that and target the oldest cases in the next few months.”

    “I request all of you to instrumentalise information and technology tools to monitor the pendency and disposal of cases. If we use simple tools which are now available you will find that we will be able to do justice and revolutionize the image of the judiciary in India.” 

    Terming district courts as the backbone judiciary and the first judicial institutions for interaction by many, he also said that people must get rid of the colonial mindset of referring to and treating district courts as the subordinate judiciary in hierarchy and in practice. 

    ALSO READ | SC disposes of 6,844 cases since Chandrachud took over as CJI

    Underscoring the reasons for the delay in the disposal of cases by referring to the data available at the National Judicial Data Grid, the CJI further said reasons for delay are not attributable to judges and this is what we need to understand and portray across society.

    “Across the country, almost 14 lakh cases have been delayed for some kind of record or document is being awaited which is beyond the control of the court. Similarly, 63 lakh cases have been considered to be delayed as per NGDG data due to the non-availability of counsel. We really need the support of the bar to ensure that our courts are functioning at optimum capacity. I must also note that our current data is based on inputs from the court so it is possible that the number of cases which are delayed due to these reasons is much higher or much lower as we have not received full data from all the courts,” he added. The judge further said that to enable court establishment to monitor the progress justice clocks will be established in every court establishment. 

    Coining the rule of bail but not jail as one of the most fundamental rules of the criminal justice system, the CJI said that in practice the number of undertrials languishing in prisons in India reflects a paradoxical situation. He also said that deprivation of liberty, even for a single day is a day too many.

    “While speaking in the state which has a history of legendary lawyers pursuing the cause of civil rights, I would be remiss if I did not share a few thoughts on one of the potent criticisms that have been levelled against the judiciary. It’s a track record in upholding the constitutional principles of personal liberty. The often cited rule is bail but not jail is one of the most fundamental rules of the criminal justice system. Yet in practice the number of undertrials languishing in prisons in India reflects a paradoxical situation, deprivation of liberty, even for a single day is a day too many,” he said.

    CJI further said that the provisions of bail must not be meaningless and mechanical. Laying emphasis on the brooding sense of fear amongst the courts of the first instance with regards to the manner in which the grant of bail will be perceived, CJI while terming such fear as purely irrational said that he has called upon Chief Justices to ensure that the practice is done away with. 

    “There have been multiple cases where trial court judges have been pulled up for grant of bail in certain High Courts. The performance of judges has been analyzed on the basis of their conviction rate. At the chief justices’ conference, I have specifically called upon the chief justices to ensure that such practices are done away with,” he said. Additionally, he also urged the judicial officers who have limitations in mingling freely in society to focus on the situation in the outside world and also have a sense of emotional stability while discharging their functions. 

    NEW DELHI: Stressing the need to change the image of the judiciary which is based on the classical movie phrase, “tareekh pe tareekh”, CJI DY Chandrachud on Friday urged the court establishments to identify and target disposing of oldest cases in the next few months. 

    Speaking at the inauguration of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Academy, CJI said, “As we think about the access of justice, we need to change the image of the judiciary which is based on the classical movie phrase, “tareekh pe tareekh”. A starting point can be for all of us in each court establishment, be it high court or district court to identify the oldest case and the number of cases in the 10-year period after that and target the oldest cases in the next few months.”

    “I request all of you to instrumentalise information and technology tools to monitor the pendency and disposal of cases. If we use simple tools which are now available you will find that we will be able to do justice and revolutionize the image of the judiciary in India.” 

    Terming district courts as the backbone judiciary and the first judicial institutions for interaction by many, he also said that people must get rid of the colonial mindset of referring to and treating district courts as the subordinate judiciary in hierarchy and in practice. 

    ALSO READ | SC disposes of 6,844 cases since Chandrachud took over as CJI

    Underscoring the reasons for the delay in the disposal of cases by referring to the data available at the National Judicial Data Grid, the CJI further said reasons for delay are not attributable to judges and this is what we need to understand and portray across society.

    “Across the country, almost 14 lakh cases have been delayed for some kind of record or document is being awaited which is beyond the control of the court. Similarly, 63 lakh cases have been considered to be delayed as per NGDG data due to the non-availability of counsel. We really need the support of the bar to ensure that our courts are functioning at optimum capacity. I must also note that our current data is based on inputs from the court so it is possible that the number of cases which are delayed due to these reasons is much higher or much lower as we have not received full data from all the courts,” he added. The judge further said that to enable court establishment to monitor the progress justice clocks will be established in every court establishment. 

    Coining the rule of bail but not jail as one of the most fundamental rules of the criminal justice system, the CJI said that in practice the number of undertrials languishing in prisons in India reflects a paradoxical situation. He also said that deprivation of liberty, even for a single day is a day too many.

    “While speaking in the state which has a history of legendary lawyers pursuing the cause of civil rights, I would be remiss if I did not share a few thoughts on one of the potent criticisms that have been levelled against the judiciary. It’s a track record in upholding the constitutional principles of personal liberty. The often cited rule is bail but not jail is one of the most fundamental rules of the criminal justice system. Yet in practice the number of undertrials languishing in prisons in India reflects a paradoxical situation, deprivation of liberty, even for a single day is a day too many,” he said.

    CJI further said that the provisions of bail must not be meaningless and mechanical. Laying emphasis on the brooding sense of fear amongst the courts of the first instance with regards to the manner in which the grant of bail will be perceived, CJI while terming such fear as purely irrational said that he has called upon Chief Justices to ensure that the practice is done away with. 

    “There have been multiple cases where trial court judges have been pulled up for grant of bail in certain High Courts. The performance of judges has been analyzed on the basis of their conviction rate. At the chief justices’ conference, I have specifically called upon the chief justices to ensure that such practices are done away with,” he said. Additionally, he also urged the judicial officers who have limitations in mingling freely in society to focus on the situation in the outside world and also have a sense of emotional stability while discharging their functions. 

  • Raising judges’ retirement age could extend service of non-performers: Justice dept to Par Panel

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Increasing the retirement age of Supreme Court and High Court judges could extend the years of service of non-performing judges and might have a cascading effect with government employees raising similar demands, the Department of Justice told a parliamentary panel.

    It also said increasing the retirement age of judges would be considered along with measures to ensure transparency and accountability in appointments to the higher judiciary.

    In July, Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had informed Parliament that there is no proposal to increase the retirement age of Supreme Court and High Court judges.

    The Department of Justice made a presentation before the parliamentary panel on Personnel, Law, and Justice that is chaired by BJP MP and former Bihar deputy chief minister Sushil Modi.

    The department in the Ministry of Law and Justice made the presentation that comprised details of judicial processes and reforms, including the possibility of increasing the retirement age of High Court and Supreme Court judges.

    “Enhancing the age of retirement might extend benefits in terms of extended years of service in certain non-deserving cases and lead to non-performing and under-performing judges to continue,” the department said in its presentation.

    It also suggested that raising the retirement age of judges should be considered along with bringing down pending cases and bringing transparency to the judiciary.

    WEB SCRAWL | The spat between the executive and judiciary

    “It would be inappropriate if the increase in retirement age is considered along with other measures to ensure transparency, accountability in the appointments to the higher judiciary, effort to fill up existing vacancies in the district and subordinate judiciary and bringing down arrears of cases pending in courts,” the department said in its presentation.

    The department said increasing the retirement age may deprive tribunals of having retired judges as presiding officers or judicial members.

    It also cautioned that retirement age may have a cascading effect.

    “Enhancement of the retirement age of judges will have a cascading effect as government employees at Centre and state level, PSUs, commissions, etc, may raise similar demand. Therefore, this issue needs to be examined in totality,” the department said.

    Supreme Court judges retire at the age of 65 years, and judges of the 25 high courts in the country retire at 62 years. The Constitution, 114th Amendment Bill was introduced in 2010 to increase the retirement age of high court judges to 65 years.

    However, it was not taken up for consideration in Parliament and lapsed with the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha.

    WEB SCRAWL | In defense of the collegium

    NEW DELHI: Increasing the retirement age of Supreme Court and High Court judges could extend the years of service of non-performing judges and might have a cascading effect with government employees raising similar demands, the Department of Justice told a parliamentary panel.

    It also said increasing the retirement age of judges would be considered along with measures to ensure transparency and accountability in appointments to the higher judiciary.

    In July, Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had informed Parliament that there is no proposal to increase the retirement age of Supreme Court and High Court judges.

    The Department of Justice made a presentation before the parliamentary panel on Personnel, Law, and Justice that is chaired by BJP MP and former Bihar deputy chief minister Sushil Modi.

    The department in the Ministry of Law and Justice made the presentation that comprised details of judicial processes and reforms, including the possibility of increasing the retirement age of High Court and Supreme Court judges.

    “Enhancing the age of retirement might extend benefits in terms of extended years of service in certain non-deserving cases and lead to non-performing and under-performing judges to continue,” the department said in its presentation.

    It also suggested that raising the retirement age of judges should be considered along with bringing down pending cases and bringing transparency to the judiciary.

    WEB SCRAWL | The spat between the executive and judiciary

    “It would be inappropriate if the increase in retirement age is considered along with other measures to ensure transparency, accountability in the appointments to the higher judiciary, effort to fill up existing vacancies in the district and subordinate judiciary and bringing down arrears of cases pending in courts,” the department said in its presentation.

    The department said increasing the retirement age may deprive tribunals of having retired judges as presiding officers or judicial members.

    It also cautioned that retirement age may have a cascading effect.

    “Enhancement of the retirement age of judges will have a cascading effect as government employees at Centre and state level, PSUs, commissions, etc, may raise similar demand. Therefore, this issue needs to be examined in totality,” the department said.

    Supreme Court judges retire at the age of 65 years, and judges of the 25 high courts in the country retire at 62 years. The Constitution, 114th Amendment Bill was introduced in 2010 to increase the retirement age of high court judges to 65 years.

    However, it was not taken up for consideration in Parliament and lapsed with the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha.

    WEB SCRAWL | In defense of the collegium

  • Big question mark over Election Commission’s fairness in last few years: Prashant Bhushan

    By PTI

    NAGPUR: Activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Sunday said the fairness of the Election Commission of India (ECI) has come under cloud in the last few years.

    He accused the ECI of keeping mum when big leaders from the ruling party violate the poll code, while acting swiftly against the opposition parties in such cases, and also claimed that the schedule of elections is made keeping in mind the convenience of the government.

    Bhushan alleged that the independence of the judiciary is under threat and those speaking against the government face sedition and other serious charges, and they are not able to get bail for years.

    He was speaking on the topic ‘Challenges before Democracy ‘ during a programme organised here by ‘Deshonnati’, a Marathi daily.

    “After T N Seshan became the chief election commissioner, for many years we could see that the Election Commission was very fair and impartial. But in the last six to seven years, a big question mark has arisen on its fairness,” he said.

    The Election Commission takes action if the Model code of conduct is violated by the opposition parties. But it keeps quiet when big leaders from the ruling party violate it. We have been witnessing this for a very long time, he alleged.

    The election dates are prepared as per the convenience of the government, he said.

    “Earlier, even the government did not know what dates will be decided by the EC for elections. But now, it is being witnessed that representatives of the ruling party even before the formal announcement tell what the polling dates are and the same dates are later announced by the EC,” he said.

    “The reason for the EC not being fair anymore. The problem with this has always been the selection in the poll watchdog is done by the government and there is no independent selection committee. And now, what the government is doing is that it is selecting people mostly from Gujarat and they are those who will do what the government will ask them to do. This also is an issue before democracy,” he said.

    Bhushan also alleged that there was a lack of independence in all regulatory institutions, and termed it as one of the biggest problems. He said the judiciary was formed to protect the fundamental rights of people and to keep the legislature and the executive within limits.

    “But now we are seeing that this is not happening. Those speaking against the government are facing sedition and sometimes false cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. They are not able to get bail for years and this is being done blatantly. Our judiciary is not able to act against it. Hence, the independence of the judiciary is also under threat,” he said.

    “Media is also being controlled by the government. The police agencies are also being used for political use. The selection of some agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Income Tax department is completely in the hands of the government, which has put democracy in real danger,” he alleged.

    On the electronic voting machines (EVMs), he said that although there was no significant manipulation in EVMs at present, in the coming times it cannot be ruled out.

    “There is a possibility of manipulation and I feel EVMs are very dangerous. Paper ballots should return and they have returned in most of the countries,” he said.

    In order to tackle these challenges, a number of reforms can be brought by introducing Initiatives and Referendum law, Pre-legislative Transparency and Consultation law, he said, adding that parliamentary committees should be revived.

    Since the opposition has become weak now, these reforms cannot be done by it alone and hence people need to raise their voices now. They can raise voices against unfair practices like which was done for the Lokpal Bill.

    People can launch big agitations on issues like unemployment and privatisation of public sector units, which will also strengthen the opposition, he said.

    Replying to a query by PTI on the sidelines of the programme about why the Supreme Court was not taking up the issue of electoral bonds on a priority basis, Bhushan said the government was not interested in the issue and probably they were stalling it.

    “However, with the new Chief Justice of India at the helm, the matter will be heard,” he said.

    Bhushan has filed a PIL challenging laws permitting funding of political parties through the electoral bond scheme.

    When asked whether the opposition parties would be able to put up a united fight against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the next elections, he said he was not sure whether united opposition would be a good idea or not.

    “But, in any case, civil society needs to play a major role to any major political change is to be brought in the country,” he said.

    NAGPUR: Activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Sunday said the fairness of the Election Commission of India (ECI) has come under cloud in the last few years.

    He accused the ECI of keeping mum when big leaders from the ruling party violate the poll code, while acting swiftly against the opposition parties in such cases, and also claimed that the schedule of elections is made keeping in mind the convenience of the government.

    Bhushan alleged that the independence of the judiciary is under threat and those speaking against the government face sedition and other serious charges, and they are not able to get bail for years.

    He was speaking on the topic ‘Challenges before Democracy ‘ during a programme organised here by ‘Deshonnati’, a Marathi daily.

    “After T N Seshan became the chief election commissioner, for many years we could see that the Election Commission was very fair and impartial. But in the last six to seven years, a big question mark has arisen on its fairness,” he said.

    The Election Commission takes action if the Model code of conduct is violated by the opposition parties. But it keeps quiet when big leaders from the ruling party violate it. We have been witnessing this for a very long time, he alleged.

    The election dates are prepared as per the convenience of the government, he said.

    “Earlier, even the government did not know what dates will be decided by the EC for elections. But now, it is being witnessed that representatives of the ruling party even before the formal announcement tell what the polling dates are and the same dates are later announced by the EC,” he said.

    “The reason for the EC not being fair anymore. The problem with this has always been the selection in the poll watchdog is done by the government and there is no independent selection committee. And now, what the government is doing is that it is selecting people mostly from Gujarat and they are those who will do what the government will ask them to do. This also is an issue before democracy,” he said.

    Bhushan also alleged that there was a lack of independence in all regulatory institutions, and termed it as one of the biggest problems. He said the judiciary was formed to protect the fundamental rights of people and to keep the legislature and the executive within limits.

    “But now we are seeing that this is not happening. Those speaking against the government are facing sedition and sometimes false cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. They are not able to get bail for years and this is being done blatantly. Our judiciary is not able to act against it. Hence, the independence of the judiciary is also under threat,” he said.

    “Media is also being controlled by the government. The police agencies are also being used for political use. The selection of some agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Income Tax department is completely in the hands of the government, which has put democracy in real danger,” he alleged.

    On the electronic voting machines (EVMs), he said that although there was no significant manipulation in EVMs at present, in the coming times it cannot be ruled out.

    “There is a possibility of manipulation and I feel EVMs are very dangerous. Paper ballots should return and they have returned in most of the countries,” he said.

    In order to tackle these challenges, a number of reforms can be brought by introducing Initiatives and Referendum law, Pre-legislative Transparency and Consultation law, he said, adding that parliamentary committees should be revived.

    Since the opposition has become weak now, these reforms cannot be done by it alone and hence people need to raise their voices now. They can raise voices against unfair practices like which was done for the Lokpal Bill.

    People can launch big agitations on issues like unemployment and privatisation of public sector units, which will also strengthen the opposition, he said.

    Replying to a query by PTI on the sidelines of the programme about why the Supreme Court was not taking up the issue of electoral bonds on a priority basis, Bhushan said the government was not interested in the issue and probably they were stalling it.

    “However, with the new Chief Justice of India at the helm, the matter will be heard,” he said.

    Bhushan has filed a PIL challenging laws permitting funding of political parties through the electoral bond scheme.

    When asked whether the opposition parties would be able to put up a united fight against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the next elections, he said he was not sure whether united opposition would be a good idea or not.

    “But, in any case, civil society needs to play a major role to any major political change is to be brought in the country,” he said.

  • Speedy, affordable delivery of justice legitimate expectation of people: Law Minister Rijiju 

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Speedy and affordable delivery of justice is the “legitimate expectation” of the people and different organs of the State have a collective responsibility to ensure this, Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said on Saturday.

    The law minister, while speaking at the launch of a six-week-long ‘Pan India Legal Awareness and Outreach Campaign’ of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), also stressed on the need for strengthening the legal education system in the country.

    President Ram Nath Kovind and Chief Justice of India Justice N V Ramana were also present at the campaign’s launch here.

    “I would like to remind us all that the speedy and affordable delivery of justice is the legitimate expectation of the people and is the collective responsibility of the different organs of the State,” the minister said, adding that it is important that all stakeholders work together to “deliver this mandate”.

    Rijiju said that access to justice has been recognised as the integral part of the legal framework prescribed under the Constitution and to achieve and realise this vision, better collaboration between the legal services authority, various departments of the government and the judiciary will be needed.

    He also said efforts should be made to ensure that mediation becomes the preferred mode of deciding commercial disputes as this will lessen the burden on courts and bring investments in the country, leading to ease of doing business and ease of living.

    “In this regard endeavours should be to restrict the adjournments to the bare minimum and mediation should be the preferred mode for litigation for commercial disputes, and this would not only lessen the burden of courts but also boost the confidence in the Indian legal system so that more investment can be attracted,” he said.

    Efforts should be made to strengthen legal education, and law colleges and universities have onerous responsibilities on their shoulders in this regard, Rijiju said, adding that “today’s law students are tomorrow’s lawyers and judges”.

    The Union minister said that the quality of education and training of law students will contribute to their success in the future and upholding the rule of law.

    He said “legal illiteracy” is one of the barriers for those who are not aware of their entitlements under the welfare laws and schemes of the central and state governments and this comes in the way of speedy justice.

    He said that contact with the justice system can be a challenging experience for many people due to its complexity.

    “For the poor and marginalised group, the justice system can be difficult to understand and navigate due to various obstacles such as lack of financial resources, awareness due to insufficient command of the local language, and long-distance to reach a legal service provider,” Rijiju said.

    He said that legal aid is the only means for such people to overcome the barriers and extolled NALSA and state legal authorities for performing exemplary roles in bringing justice to the doorstep of citizens.

    The minister said legal service authorities make people aware of their entitlement and duties on various laws and schemes relating to children, labourers, SC-ST, persons suffering from disabilities.

    “The legal service authorities touch upon the lives of disaster victims, victims of trafficking, acid attack, sexual exploitation.

    Each scheme is testimony to the fact that our legal service authorities are committed to help disadvantaged persons in realizing their legal rights and build a secure future,” he said.

    He said that more than 90 lakh people so far have been facilitated by the legal service authorities in accessing their need for food, medicine, and shelter.

    “They are also using their colossal network to reach out to people in remote areas. Particular work that I applaud is the Lok Adalat, especially the e-Lok Adalat,” Rijiju said.

    Rijiju, however, emphasised that there needs to be better collaboration between legal service authorities and various departments and agencies of the government to achieve the vision and build on the work accomplished so far.

    Judges of the Supreme Court Justice U U Lalit and Justice A M Khanwilkar were also part of the event.

  • ‘It’s a matter of right, not charity’: CJI Ramana asks women lawyers to demand 50% reservation in judiciary

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India N V Ramana on Sunday exhorted women lawyers to strongly raise their demand for 50 per cent reservation in the judiciary while assuring them of his “total support”.

    “I don’t want you to cry but with anger, you have to shout and demand that we need 50 per cent reservation,” he said.

    The CJI said that it’s an issue of thousands of years of suppression and women are entitled to the reservation and added, “It’s a matter of right, and not a matter a charity.”

    He said, “I want to say that I strongly recommend and support the demand of a certain percentage of reservation in all law schools of the country for women, so that they can join the judiciary.”

    Speaking at a felicitation function organised by Lady Advocates of Supreme Court for the nine newly appointed judges, including three women judges, CJI Ramana said he has modified Karl Marx’s quote “Workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chain” for the occasion and added: “Women of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chain.”

    The CJI said, “You all are laughing. Yes, I don’t want you to cry but with anger, you have to shout and demand that we need 50 per cent reservation. It’s not a small issue but an issue of thousands of years of suppression. It is high time we have 50 per cent representation of women in the judiciary. You are entitled (to it), it’s a matter of right. It is not a matter a charity. It is unfortunate that some things are realised very late.”

    He said he will be “very happy” whenever the goal will be realised.

    “All my sisters and all of you have carved out exceptions for people in the society and women of the society and for that matter youngsters whether male or female are all waiting and looking at you as if you are role models.

    “Your success stories will make them more impulsive and we expect more women will join the profession and we will achieve the goal of 50 per cent shortly. I wholeheartedly support all initiatives taken by you and so long as I am here I will support all of your causes,” he said.

    The Chief Justice of India said that he believes in mixing with people, knowing about their ideas so that he understands what is the problem the society is facing, but added these days he is visiting lots of places and has got bored of giving speeches.

    “After coming back yesterday night from Odisha, I collected some information about the system in which we are working. In the entire country…in subordinate judiciary less than 30 per cent are women, in high courts women judges are 11.5 per cent and in Supreme Court four women judges out of 33…(that is) 11 or 12 per cent,” the CJI said.

    He said that out of 1.7 million advocates in the country only 15 per cent are women and only two per cent elected representatives in the state bar councils are women.

    “The other day I have told Bar council of India chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, what is this in your bar council national committee you don’t have any single woman member represented, this needs urgent correction,” he said.

    CJI Ramana further said that people will often say easily that it is difficult to have 50 per cent reservation because women have a lot of problems but that’s not correct.

    “I do agree that there is an uncomfortable environment, lack of infrastructure, crowded courtrooms, lack of washrooms, lack of creches and lack of sitting places, which are some of the major issues which are unfriendly to the women lawyers in the system,” he said.

    He said that after gathering information about the prevailing conditions throughout the country he is proposing for Judicial Infrastructure Corporation, which is the need of the hour.

    “In 6,000 courts across the country, 22 per cent of them do not have separate toilets (for women) and even lady officers also have to suffer from this,” the CJI said.

    These are the ground realities which we have to tackle immediately and that is the reason why I am proposing certain issues to the executive to take and correct this,” he added.

    With regard to lawyers’ demand for opening of the top court for physical hearings which has been held virtually since the outset of the pandemic, the CJI said that hopefully after Dussehra vacation it may resume.

    “The problem is you know we have limited opening (both virtual and physical) but majority of the advocates do not prefer, I don’t know why but for whatever reasons, particularly senior counsels have some reservations but youngsters and other lawyers are willing to come,” he said.

    He said that senior advocate Vikas Singh, who is president of Supreme Court Bar Association, has raised certain issues with regard to hybrid hearing SOP and it is being corrected and made more liberal.

    “We can expect full opening of the courts but the problem is we don’t want to take any risk because of the medical advice and suddenly they may say that there may be a third or fourth wave. …So you hope that there are no waves and most probably after Dussehra vacation, I think we can go for physical hearing,” CJI Ramana said.

  • Govt returned 14 names recommended by collegium for elevation as High Court judges

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The government is learnt to have returned to the Supreme Court collegium names of 14 advocates it had recommended for elevation as high court judges.

    Sources in the government said all the names were returned with a request to reconsider within a span of one week sometime in the end of July and early August.

    But the recommendations by the apex court collegium were made nearly a year ago. In some cases the recommendations were made over a year ago.

    The names for elevation were made for the high courts of Delhi, Calcutta, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka and Kerala, the sources said without elaborating.

    In written reply to a question in Rajya Sabha during the Monsoon session of Parliament, Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had said during the last one year, the Supreme Court collegium recommended 80 names for appointment as judges of various high courts, out of which 45 judges were appointed and the remaining proposals are under various stages of processing.

    He had said that between July 1, 2020, and July 15, 2021, the Supreme Court collegium made 80 recommendations for appointment of judges in various high courts.

    Out of these, 45 “recommendees” were appointed by the government as high court judges and the “remaining proposals are under various stages of processing with the government and the SC Collegium”, Rijiju had said.

    India has 25 high courts with a sanctioned strength of 1,098 judges.

    The working strength as on August 1 stands at 643 — a shortfall of 455 judges.