JUDICIAL SYSTEM OUGHT TO PROTECT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.
By: Neelam M. Singh
Justice Ranjan Gogoi, said, "we aren't insisting on being called My Lords"! Sir, why you didn't pass an Order?
2. Salutation to Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court has issued an Order, to members of the district judiciary in West Bengal, as well as registry staff of Courts, that lawyers will no longer have to address the Chief Justice of the High Court of Calcutta as ‘My Lord’ or ‘Lordship’. A simple ‘Sir’ will satisfy. This was announced in a letter sent from the Calcutta High Court Registrar-General via e-mail to all District Judges & Chief Judicial Magistrate or Sessions Judge on 16.07.20 As per the letter, the decision has been taken by the Chief Justice himself.
3. SALUTATION TO JUSTICE DR.S. MURALIDHAR, WHO CLEARLY ANNOUNCED NOT TO BE ADDRESSED BY A COURT ORDER!
It's time that lawyers should have some selfe esteem and ADDRESS THE HON'BLE JUDGES AS "SIR OR MADAM/ MA'AM" AS THE CASE MAY BE!
4. Judges don't have divine powers of the Lord.
It's a British imperialist, enslaving mentality.
We can address them as "Manyavar" !
5. Stop sycophancy.
Be legal, on point of law and be truthful. I've seen lawyers saying so many lies and cooked up stories, to win a case. Obviously no one expects lawyers to be angels of piety and truth, but to lead the court to believe lies, is abominable! That's why judges don't take lawyers on face value.
It's the duty of the lawyers, to help the court come to correct judgments.
6. Nepotism prevails in courts as well. Sons, daughters, nephews, uncles of Hon'ble Judges, are legal practitioners in the same Court. Clients of Judge's kins, meet them at their official residence. Isn't this 'clash of interest'? Caesar's wife should be above suspicion.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Courts should evolve a system, of making lawyers, not only accountable but also transparent to the citizens.
7. Cases of impeachment against Hon'ble Judges from District Court to Supreme Court of India, are on record !
8. P. D. Dinakaran - former High Court Chief Justice against whom Parliament initiated impeachment proceedings.
Soumitra Sen - former Calcutta High Court judge who became the first judge in Independent India to be impeached by Rajya Sabha.
9. For the second time, Rajya Sabha MPs are moving a motion to initiate impeachment proceedings against Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy of the High Court for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Though no judge has been impeached in India till date, this is not the first time such a proceedings have been initiated.
Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court in 2011 avoided the ignominy of becoming the first judge to be impeached by Parliament by tendering his resignation.
He did so after the Rajya Sabha had passed the motion making him the first judge to have been impeached by the Upper House for misconduct. Justice Sen was found guilty of misappropriating Rs 33.23 lakh under his custody as a court-appointed receiver in the capacity as a lawyer, and misrepresenting facts before a Calcutta court in a 1983 case. Read more
10. P.D Dinakaran :-
Justice P.D. Dinakaran, Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court, against whom the Rajya Sabha Chairman had set up a judicial panel to look into allegations of corruption, resigned in July 2011, before impeachment proceedings could be initiated against him.
Corruption, land-grab and abuse of judicial office were among the 16 charges framed against Justice Dinakaran. Read more
11. J.B. Pardiwala
In 2015, a group of 58 Rajya Sabha MPs moved an impeachment notice against Justice J.B. Pardiwala of the Gujarat High Court for his “objectionable remarks on the issue of reservation.”
The MPs, in their petition, said Justice Pardiwala’s comments on reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, while giving a ruling in a case against Patidar leader Hardik Patel, were objectionable. The specific objection seemed to be connected to the observations made by the judge in paragraph 62 of the judgment.
12. AN ESSAY BY ANIL DEWAN: SENIOR ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA:-
“If I am asked by anyone to name two things which have destroyed this country or rather have not allowed the country to progress in the right direction, then the same is, (i) Reservation and (ii) Corruption. It is very shameful for any citizen of this country to ask for reservation after 65 years of Independence. When our Constitution was framed, it was understood that reservation would remain for a period of 10 years, but unfortunately, it has continued even after 65 years of Independence,” he had said.
Hours after the impeachment notice was sent to Hamid Ansari, the judge removed the wording from his judgment.
13. V. Ramaswami
Justice V. Ramaswami has the dubious distinction of being the first judge against whom impeachment proceedings were initiated. In 1993, the motion was brought up in Lok Sabha, but it failed to secure the required two-thirds majority.
Justice Ramaswami was caught in a controversy for spending extravagantly on his official residence during his tenure as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana during 1990. The Supreme Court Bar Association even passed a resolution calling for his impeachment
A single dishonest judge not only dishonours himself and disgraces his office but jeopardises the integrity of the entire judicial system” said our Supreme Court.
In our country, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have set very high standards in protecting the citizen’s rights, the freedom of speech and expression, the rule of law, the independence of judiciary and judicial review. The Indian judiciary has earned and won international accolades. Its achievements are second to none. Every citizen, every judge and every lawyer owes it to the country and to future generations that this lustre is not dimmed, this reputation is not tarnished, this bulwark of freedom is not undermined or weakened.
14. When citizens and lawyers make complaints against the functioning of judges, it is because they want to preserve this vital institution in our democracy.
15. The Justice Dinakaran controversy is ‘snowballing’ and is diminishing the image of the judiciary with every passing hour. National dailies have been reporting various news items. Some of the headlines run — “Dinakaran elevation put on hold” ( The Hindu, 11.10.2009); “TN report may nail Dinakaran” ( The Times of India, 11.10.2009); “Dinakaran row: Panel may ask Govt. to consider others” ( The Indian Express, 11.10.2009); “Supreme Court studies secret report on Dinakaran” ( The Times of India, 11.10.2009); “Dinakaran move to SC held up” ( The Asian Age, 12.10.2009); “Government to take possession of Judge land” ( The Asian Age, 12.10.2009); “Charges pile up against Dinakaran” ( Hindustan Times, 13.10.2009); and “TN farmers now add to Dinakaran’s woes” ( The Indian Express, 13.10.2009).
The informed citizen is inquiring — what is happening? What are the decisions of the Collegium? Why the delay in appointing four other State Chief Justices to the Supreme Court — all senior to Justice Dinakaran? Why is Justice Dinakaran being permitted to sit and discharge judicial functions in spite of serious allegations being looked into? Even though over a month has expired there is no press release, official statement or information officially given or emanating from the Supreme Court.
In contrast, it is interesting to recall the sequence of events that took place in the case of Justice V. Ramaswami in the 1990s when he was a sitting judge of the Supreme Court. In the beginning of May 1990, reports started circulating about various questionable acts of Justice Ramaswami when he was the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. There were reports submitted by the Internal Audit Cell of the High Court, a report by the District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance), reports and audit queries from the Accountant General’s Office.
The then Attorney-General of India, Soli J. Sorabjee, and the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, K.K. Venugopal, and other leaders of the Bar met Chief Justice of India Sabyasachi Mukharji and drew attention to these reports. On July 20, 1990, CJI Mukharji, when some of us were present in Court, got up a few minutes earlier and announced that he would come back to make a statement. He did so after 4 pm. His statement was widely published and is part of the Supreme Court record.
After referring to the reports circulating about Justice V. Ramaswami, his statement to the Bar, in open Court contained the following: “This was an unprecedented and an embarrassing situation. It called for caution and establishment of a salutary convention.”
“The Supreme Court must uphold the rule of law. It is, therefore, necessary that those who uphold the rule of law must live by law and judges must, therefore, be obliged to live according to law.” ... “We must, therefore, ensure that there is no conduct of the judges which affects the faith of the people that judges live according to law.”
“I was constrained, in those circumstances, to advise Brother Ramaswami to desist from discharging judicial functions so long as the investigations continued and his name was cleared on this aspect.” ... “Since I had assured the learned Attorney General, the Law Minister, the president of the Bar Association and others that I will look into it, I thought I must convey to you the result of my looking into it.”
Justice Ramaswami went on leave.
The sequel to Justice Ramaswami’s case needs to be recalled. On August 29, 1990, CJI Mukharji constituted a Committee of three judges — Justice Ray, Justice Shetty and Justice Venkatachaliah and sought their advice as to whether Justice Ramaswami should sit in Court. Unfortunately, CJI Mukharji died prematurely on September 25, 1990, and the matter took a different turn under the leadership of Chief Justice Ranganath Misra who was appointed CJI on October 6, 1990. The Committee of three judges made its report on November 6, 1990, saying it did not see any ground of moral turpitude which would prevent Justice Ramaswami from discharging his duty as a judge. The Committee made clear that “This exercise is not to sit in judgment over the conduct of Justice Ramaswami, much less to engage ourselves in any exercise to ascertain whether his conduct is blame-worthy in any manner.”
Thereupon, Justice V. Ramaswami started discharging his judicial duties. But my recollection is that at the request of the Bar, the Court agreed that advocates who did not want their matters taken up by him could request listing before another Bench.
The Lok Sabha Speaker, on an impeachment motion, appointed a Committee consisting of Justice P.B. Sawant of the Supreme Court, Justice P.D. Desai, Sitting Chief Justice of Bombay, and O. Chinnappa Reddy, a former judge of the Supreme Court. The Committee in its report gave adverse findings opining that the acts constituted “misbehaviour”.
The rest is history. The ruling party under the leadership of Prime Minister Narasimha Rao abstained from voting and the impeachment motion failed. (196 for the motion, none against, 205 abstentions).
In the Justice Dinakaran matter, after September 8, 2009, several representations with facts and documents containing serious allegations have been sent to the collegium by responsible lawyers regarding the appointment of Justice P.D. Dinakaran.
There is no sharing of information by the Supreme Court collegium with the public or the Bar, no official statement, no press release. Rumour and speculation are having a field day. It is said “there is nothing busier than an idle rumour.”
In Justice Ramaswami’s case, the statement made by CJI Mukharji in open court set a precedent and should be regarded as a healthy convention. What is the way forward? First, if the representations made to the collegium are of sufficient gravity, surely the precedent by which Justice Mukharji requested Justice V. Ramaswami to go on leave is worthy of emulation. Secondly, the way forward would be to take the public, the legal fraternity and the media into confidence by regular official releases or press statements issued under the authority of the Supreme Court collegiums. Thirdly, before the snowball turns into an avalanche, it is important to know whether his appointment is going forward or not.
The wise words used by the three Judges Committee in the Ramaswami case need to be recalled: “A judge’s morals are not the standards of the marketplace but are the “punctilio” of a higher code.
“There has, indeed, been a growing sense of cynicism and concern in public mind about the fall in the standards of judicial conduct and of the wisdom of such constitutional immunity for judicial improprieties from public scrutiny and censure.
“Today, the incantation of maxims of high judicial morality has few takers; acceptable precept is acceptable example alone. Sunlight is, perhaps, the best disinfectant.”
( Anil Divan is a Senior Advocate. Email: abdsad@airtelmail.in)
Acknowledgements: The Hindu, Google, Supreme Court of India website etc.
( Neelam M. Singh is a journalist & human rights crusader for last 30+ years. She's a Post Graduate from St. Stephen's College, M. Phil. from D.U. & TV News Producer from FTII- Pune. She's a Solicitor and Philanthropist. She's been a vanguard team member as Senior News Correspondent for Doordarshan News Division)
www.neelamsingh.online
Shambhu Yadav says:-
हमारी संस्कृति में भांड़ गीरी करने की प्राचीन परंपरा रही है। वह चाहे भगवान की हो या नेता की या राजा की भांड़गीरी में हमारा देश अव्वल रहा है।
त्वमेव माता च पिता त्वमेव
त्वमेव बंधुस्च सखा त्वमेव......
जन गण मन अधिनायक जय हो
भारत भाग्यविधाता जय हो जय हो .
हालांकि वे बधाई के पात्र हैं जिन्होंने O my lord , O my God , lordships जैसे शब्दों के प्रयोग पर बैन कर रहे हैं।
एक अच्छी पहल है।
Comments
Post a Comment