News Analysis India

Tag: Judiciary

  • India can’t have parallel legal systems for rich and poor, impartial judiciary democracy’s cornerstone: Supreme Court

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: India cannot have two parallel legal systems, one for the rich and resourceful and those who wield political power and the other for “small men” without resources and capabilities to access justice, the Supreme Court said on Thursday.

    The apex court also said the “colonial mindset meted out to the district judiciary” must change to preserve the faith of citizens and stated that judges are “made targets when they stand up for what is right”.

    The top court made these crucial observations while cancelling the bail granted to Madhya Pradesh BSP MLA’s husband, who was arrested in over a two-year-old murder case of Congress leader Devendra Chourasia.

    An independent and impartial judiciary is the cornerstone of democracy and it should be immune from political pressures and considerations, the top court said.

    “India cannot have two parallel legal systems, one for the rich and resourceful and those who wield political power and the other for small men without resources without capabilities to gain justice. The existence of a dual system will only chip away the legitimacy of the law. The duty also falls on the state machinery to be committed to the rule of law,” the top court said.

    A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah said district judiciary is the first point of interface with the citizens.

    “If the faith of citizens in the judiciary is to be preserved, it is the district judiciary on which attention must be focused,” the bench said.

    The top court said trial court judges work amidst appalling conditions, lack of infrastructure, inadequate protection and there are examples of judges being made targets when they stand up for what is right.

    Also, there is sadly a subservience to the administration of the high courts for transfers and postings which renders them vulnerable, the bench said.

    “The colonial mindset meted out to the district judiciary must change, it is only then that civil liberties for every citizen, be it accused victim or civil society will be meaningfully preserved in our trial courts which are first line of defence for those who are being wronged,” the bench said.

    The apex court said the function of the judiciary as an independent institution is rooted in the concept of separation of powers. Individual judges must be able to adjudicate disputes in accordance with law unhindered by any other factors and for that reason independence of the judiciary and of each judge is a must, the bench said.

    Independence of individual judges also encompasses that they are independent of their superiors and colleagues, it said adding that our constitution specially envisages Independence of district judiciary which is mentioned in Article 50.

    “If District judiciary operates under the supervision of the high court then is it must secure its independence from external influence and control.

    “This compartmentalisation of judiciary and executive should not be breached by the personal decision making of the judges and the conduct of court proceedings under the relevant acts,” the bench said.

    The top court said there is no gainsaying that judiciary should be immune to political pressures and considerations.

    A judiciary susceptible to such pressures allows politicians to operate with impunity and criminality to flourish in the political apparatus of the state.

    The apex court said the judges being undeterred in their commitment to follow law and do justice should be cautious of launching a diatribe against state authorities without due care and diligence.

  • NIA, NHRC, Modi govt and judicial system executed plot against Stan Swamy: Maoists

    Express News Service
    RANCHI: The Maoists on Tuesday alleged that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) framed Stan Swamy in a fake case and demanded immediate release of all the activists lodged in jail in the Bhima Koregaon case. 

    The CPI (Maoists) also demanded the withdrawal of all the cases filed against them and appealed to the writers, artists, singers, lawyers, and democratic intelligentsia to support them.

    According to a press note released by the spokesperson of the CPI (Maoist) Central Committee, Stan Swamy was framed by NIA in the Bhima Koregoan case. “CPI (Maoist) announces that the death of Stan Swamy was a conspiracy. It has also been opined by the activists, intellectuals, democratic intelligentsia, human rights activists, and chief ministers of various states such as Jharkhand, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala. Undoubtedly, the conspiracy has been executed by the NIA, NHRC, BJP Government at the centre and the judiciary as well,” stated the press note issued by CPI (Maoists). 

    Giving voice to the demand of immediate release of all the social and political activists and withdrawal of all cases related to the Bhima Koregaon case without any conditions would be a true tribute to Stan Swamy, it added.

    CPI (Maoist) also made an appeal to the writers, artists, singers, lawyers, and democratic intelligentsia to come forward for defeating the “anti-people” forces in the country, which is being used for denying the basic rights of the common people.

    Stan Swamy, 84, who worked for the rights of Adivasis and other underprivileged people in Jharkhand for more than three decades, passed away at a Mumbai Hospital on July 5. 

    Swamy had been languishing in jail since October 8, last year after NIA arrested him in the Bhima Koregaon case — the violence which erupted at an event to mark 100 years of the Bhima-Koregaon battle on January 1 in 2018, leaving one dead and several others injured. People close to Swamy, however, termed his death as an “institutional murder” saying that he was arrested on fake charges only to be killed in jail.

  • SC expresses concern over lengthy arguments, says judicial system exists for ‘common man’

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The judicial system exists for the “common man”, the Supreme Court observed on Thursday while expressing concern over lengthy arguments by litigants that too during the COVID times, and said restricting time for oral submissions needs to be enforced.

    The apex court also said it was aware of “equal responsibility of this side of the bench” and suggested that “Wren & Martin principles of precis writing must be adopted” for clear and short judgements which litigants understand.

    However, there are hours-long submissions and vast amounts of material placed before the courts, it added.

    The crucial observations over prolonged arguments, submission of lengthy documents and case laws by counsels came in a judgement by which the apex court which dismissed the plea of Facebook India Vice President and MD Ajit Mohan challenging the summons issued to him by the Delhi Assembly’s Peace and Harmony committee for failing to appear before it as witness in connection with the north-east Delhi riots which broke out last February.

    A bench headed by Justice SK Kaul said: “The purpose of our post script is only to start a discussion among the legal fraternity by bringing to notice the importance of succinctly framed written synopsis in advance, and the same being adhered to in course of oral arguments to be addressed over a limited time period and more crisp, clear and precise judgments so that the common man can understand what is the law being laid down.

    After all, it is for ‘the common man’ that the judicial system exists’.

    The top court said that as on May 1, 2021 it had 67,898 pending matters and the time spent on routine matters leaves little time to settle legal principles pending before larger benches that may have an impact down the line on the judicial system.

    “This is the reason it is said that we have become courts of interim proceedings where final proceedings conclude after ages — only for another round to start in civil proceedings of execution,” said the bench, also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy.

    The apex court said there needs to be clarity in the thought process on what is to be addressed before the Court and the lawyers must be clear on the contours of their submissions from the very inception of the arguments.

    “This should be submitted as a brief synopsis by both sides and then strictly adhered to. Much as the legal fraternity would not want, restriction of time period for oral submissions is an aspect which must be brought into force,” the bench said.

    “We really doubt whether any judicial forum anywhere in the world would allow such time periods to be taken for oral submissions and these be further supplemented by written synopsis thereafter. Instead of restricting oral arguments it has become a competing arena of who gets to argue for the longest time,” he added.

    The apex court said that in this particular case “saga of the hearing lasted 26 hours – which is a lot of judicial time”.

    “Apart from pleadings, there were written synopses, additional written synopses, rejoinders and replies filed liberally by both parties. The convenience compilations themselves were very voluminous, in contradiction to their very purpose. Our concern is if this is how the proceedings will go on in the future, it will be very difficult to deal with the post COVID period, which is likely to see a surge in the number of cases pending adjudication,” it said.

    The bench said that COVID times have been difficult for everyone and the Judiciary and the Bar are no exception. It has been a contributing factor in there being a period of four months between reserving the judgment and pronouncement of the order, but that is not the only reason, it said.

    The top court said that delay in judicial proceedings has been the bane of our country and there cannot be a refusal to part ways from old practices especially when they have outlived their purpose.

    “It is the litigants who bear the costs of our complex and prolonged adjudicatory process. We are conscious of the equal responsibility of this side of the bench – it is the need of the hour to write clear and short judgments which the litigant can understand,” it said.

    “The Wren & Martin principles of precis writing must be adopted. But then how is this to be achieved if the submissions itself go on for hours on end with vast amounts of material being placed before the Court; with the expectation that each aspect would be dealt with in detail failing which review applications will be filed,” the bench said.

    In a technological age like ours, all that is required is to instruct the junior counsel to take out all judgments on a particular point of view and submit it to the court in a nice spiral binding, it said. The proposition of law is not doubted by the Court, it does not need a precedent unless asked for.

    If a question is raised about a legal proposition, the judgment must be relatable to that proposition – and not multiple judgments, the court said.

    “Another matter of concern is prolonged interim proceedings. In criminal matters, even bail matters are being argued for hours together and at multiple levels. The position is no different in civil proceedings where considerable time is spent at interim stage when the objective should be only to safeguard the rights of the parties by a short order, and spend the time on the substantive proceedings instead which could bring an end to the lis rather than on the interim arrangement,” the bench said.

  • CJI suggests ad-hoc judges to cut pendency

    By Express News Service
    NEW DELHI:  The Supreme Court on Thursday said ad-hoc judges can be appointed in high courts to clear pending cases. “There are suits pending for 30 years which also include criminal trials. It is not a matter of opinion but fact that judges who have been there for 15 to 20 years can continue to dispose of matters,” said a bench headed by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde.

    The bench was hearing a PIL filed by NGO Lok Prahari seeking appointment of retired judges to clear pending cases. The bench said the Constitution allows appointment of adhoc judges and taking that route has become a necessity in view of the out-of-hand pendency. The Centre’s counsel Additional Solicitor General R S Suri said ad-hoc appointments can be made after vacancies for regular posts are filled.

    To this, CJI Bobde said, “We are not sure how much cooperation we are receiving from you regarding that. But ad-hoc judges are not a threat.” The ad-hoc judges would be considered the junior-most so that they don’t become a ‘threat’ to anybody in terms of seniority, the CJI added. The SC also clarified that it’s not creating a new convention but is only suggesting to use a provision in the Constitution.

    “Article 224A is a Constitutional provision… We will lay down guidelines stating if pendency goes beyond certain limit for, say, more than eight or 10 years, then the Chief Justice will automatically recommend the appointment of ad-hoc judge. After Collegium approves, they can sit and it (term) can be extended,” it added.

    The court also wanted to know the status of the 55 names cleared by the SC Collegium for appointments to various high courts but have not been notified by the government yet. The top court noted that there should be a reasonable timeframe for the law ministry to respond to the the Collegium’s recommendations. After seeking suggestions from the Centre and high courts, the SC adjourned the matter to April 8.

  • ‘SC has conducted highest sittings during pandemic’

    Express News Service
    NEW DELHI:   Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday hailed the country’s judiciary, saying it had performed its duty well in safeguarding the people’s rights and upholding personal liberty, especially during the pandemic.

    Speaking after releasing a commemorative postage stamp to mark 60 years of the Gujarat High Court, Modi said the Supreme Court had conducted the highest number of hearings via video-conferencing in the world during the coronavirus pandemic.

    The top court held 43,713 hearings through video conference in 2020 with 1,998 benches sitting from March 23, 2020 to December 31, 2020 to hear cases via the virtual mode. “Every countryman can say that our judiciary has worked with firmness.

    Our judiciary has strengthened the constitution by its positive interpretation,” Modi said. The PM expressed satisfaction that digital infrastructure put in place by the Law Ministry’s e-courts integrated mission mode project had been adopted quickly by the courts.

    EARLIER, JUDGE HAD CALLED PM A HEROIn 2019, Justice Shah had made the remark while being sworn as the chief justice of the Patna high court. He earlier served in the Gujarat HC. He is due to retire in 2023

  • Pain of Hostage MLAs in Baangalore Hotel: Supreme Court must take suo-moto notice

    There are four pillars of democracy, first judiciary, the second executive, the third legislature and the fourth journalism. Where do these four pillars stand? What is the hinges on these pillars? Obviously the pillars did not stand in the air and if there was no end to them then there was no justification for making them! These pillars are built on the land named Janata. It is housed on top of the security of this public which also works for us.

    Now the legislators elected by these people are being kept away from the people, so that MLAs can’t contact their people and without their will, they have become caged parrot against their wishes.

    After the announcement of the results of Karnataka assembly elections, four pillars of democracy are seismic. Rahul Gandhi had said that if he could speak in the temple of democracy, then the earthquake would come. There has been an earthquake by Rahul Gandhi’s undemocratic activities and the four pillars of democracy have become seismic.

    Three pillars of democracy are defining the opposite of Gandhiji’s three monkeys. These three pillars media, legislature and judiciary are not speaking, neither listening nor seeing.

    Considering legislatures like bonded laborers, they have been made caged parrots by firing them on their ability to fly, think, decesion, and put them in the hotel-cage.

    African Negro Slaves were kept in America and other European countries long ago. They were tortured and acted against the will. Women were raped. If a slave was running away, the advertisements were given announcing prize that brought them.

    We still have returned to the same direction. Cricket players are being auctioned. Princes of Arab countries buy children. They were tied on camels. When the camels ran, the children began to cry then these princes and Arab sultans used to enjoy. Little girls are being sold to those princes.

    Is this not happening in Karnataka by the Congress, JDU? Rahul Gandhi’s freedom gang is engaged in all these non-political activities. Sanjay Nirupam has called the dog to the Gujarat governor. Communists also called Subhash Chandra Bose a dog of Tojo.

    During the hearing on the Congress and JD (U) petition, Justice AK Sikri had said that the resort of which the Congress and JD (M) MLAs have been named, its owner can claim to form the government in Karnataka. Because the resort hotel have 117 legislators from the state, which is more than the majority. Justice Sikri said, Social media is underway that the resort owner is going to write a letter to the Karnataka governor that he is in a position to form government with the support of 117 MLAs.

    We hope that the court, which has established a record of hearing in the middle of the night, will now automatically take cognizance of the democracy’s joke in Karnataka and jihadi secular media will also be able to escape from its cluttering sleep.