Katju firm on ‘corrupt judge’ claims, poses six questions to ex CJI

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by Ray, Jul 22, 2014.

  1. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Good old katju, as per form and personality, has set the cat amongst the pigeons.

    It is true that he has spoken out of school that has upset Soli Sorabjee and Rohatgi amongst others, but then has he not exposed the rot that exists in our Judiciary, which is beyond question because of the draconian ' contempt' clause which these so called honourable Justices and Judges hold as Sword of Damocles whenever or wherever they are discomfited to face the reality and truth?

    Santiago Ashoke Kumar is the disreputable Judge in question as per newsreports in other papers.

    Even the ex Law Minister Pardwaj has agreed that 18 MPs of the DMK and other SC MPs IIRC stormed into his office to canvas Santiago's case being a SC Judge.

    it is also a known fact that the ex President Narayanan demanded that there should be an SC representation in the Supreme Court

    Narayanan it is said is a crypto Christian and is it said of KG Balakrishnan who made this alleged disreputable Judge Santiago Ashoke Kumar a permanent Judge and posted him out of the State. Apparently, a crypto Christian conspiracy of scratching each others back?

    |never heard of any Santiago being a name of an SC though.

    Whatever be the case, whether the documents are there or destroyed, what clinches Katju's contention is that if Santiago AK was not bespoiled in reputation, then he would have been made a permanent Judge in the first instance. The fact that he was given repeated extension is indicative that there were some blemish that prevented Santiago becoming permanent.

    And it required a crypto as alleged to assist Santiago by making him permanent.

    Can KGB explain what made him overrule the other CJIs who did not cross the Rubicon to make Santiago permanant.

    And any way KGB is himself a tainted Joe.

    One wonders why such Joes can become CJIs and then inspite of corruption charges move around merrily from one post to another. KGB is now heading National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India. Some Human Rights he sure must be upholding!

    This is another example wherein merit is overlooked for social engineering and being an SC as the sole criterion for elevation!
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2014
  2.  
  3. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Katju firm on ‘corrupt judge’ claims, poses six questions to ex CJ

    [​IMG]

    A few days after M. Karunanidhi was arrested in a midnight swoop on June 30, 2001, the former chief minister’s bail application had come up before sessions judge Santiago Ashok Kumar.

    ‘Saviour’ of Karunanidhi

     
  4. Blackwater

    Blackwater Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Messages:
    21,001
    Likes Received:
    11,842
    Location:
    Akhand Bharat
    Re: Katju firm on ‘corrupt judge’ claims, poses six questions to ex CJ

    dhoti wale southie parties blackmailed UPA for the last 10 yrs. they are the one who were involved in lot of corruption by blackmailing UPA of withdraw support. they also made suffer india foriegn policy in context of srilanka.

    iam glad they are not part of this stable full majority modi govt
     
  5. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Katju firm on ‘corrupt judge’ claims, poses six questions to ex CJ

    I feel sorry for Manmohan wherein good old Chairman UPA must have sided with the DMK as when he did not want some DMK chaps in demanded ministerial berths,.
     
  6. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Katju firm on ‘corrupt judge’ claims, poses six questions to ex CJ

    Katju’s charges expose faultlines in judicial appointments

    Former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju’s allegations that three successive Chief Justices of India made “improper compromises” to save a “corrupt judge” of the Madras high court have once again exposed the shortcomings in the judicial appointments system.

    Justice Katju’s allegation of political pressure — confirmed by the then law minister HR Bhardwaj — have come close on the heels of the recent faceoff between the judiciary and the executive over the latter’s refusal to appoint senior advocate Gopal Subramanium as an SC judge.

    The allegations raise serious questions about judicial independence and allude to murky deals made to save the Manmohan Singh-led UPA-I government.

    To suggest that a tainted high court judge was allowed to continue in order to save the UPA-I government is too serious an allegation to ignore, notwithstanding the compulsions of coalition politics Manmohan Singh faced.

    Be it the recommendation to appoint then Karnataka HC chief justice PD Dinakaran as an SC judge or the latest tussle between the judiciary and the NDA government over proposed elevation of Karnataka HC judge KL Manjunath as the chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana HC — judicial appointments have been making headlines for all the wrong reasons.

    Under Article 124(2) and Article 217(1) of the Constitution, a judge of the Supreme Court and that of a high court respectively have to be appointed by the President after ‘consultation’ with the CJI.

    As an answer to attempts to install a committed judiciary by Indira Gandhi in 1970s and early 1980s, the SC in 1993 devised the collegium system as a bulwark against political interference. Under this system, top judges of the SC appoint judges of the higher judiciary.

    Often described as “give and take” between the government and judiciary, this system has been under attack for some time for its complete opacity.

    However, of late there has been political consensus that collegium system must be replaced. In September last year, the Rajya Sabha passed the Constitution (120th Amendment) Bill, 2013 but it has lapsed with the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha. Interestingly, the accompanying Bill on the composition of Judicial Appointment Commission (JAC) — introduced in the Rajya Sabha and referred to the parliamentary standing committee — is still alive.

    PRS Legislative Research president NR Madhavan said “Unless the mother bill ie Constitution Amendment Bill is passed, the JAC Bill can’t be taken up.”

    Supporting the idea of having an independent body to appoint judges, advocate Prashant Bhushan, convener of Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform, said: “Unfortunately, neither the judiciary nor the government want to have a rational and transparent system for selecting judges. Each just wants a greater part of the appointments pie, without ensuring that the system will select the most honest and competent judges.”

    There are certain anomalies in these bills, including the composition of the JAC. Now it remains to be seen how soon the NDA government re-works and re-introduces them in Parliament.

    Katju’s charges expose faultlines in judicial appointments - Hindustan Times
     
  7. parijataka

    parijataka Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,893
    Likes Received:
    3,688
    Location:
    Bengaluru
    Re: Katju firm on ‘corrupt judge’ claims, poses six questions to ex CJ

    @Ray sir, read a comment on Twitter that Katju waited for regime change to reveal this judicial corruption else Congress supporting media would have muzzled him. Makes sense actually as he is not one who holds his opinions to himself !
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  8. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Katju firm on ‘corrupt judge’ claims, poses six questions to ex CJ

    MMS was the PM.

    The note from the PMO asking the Law Minister to seek clarification as to why Santiago Asok Kumar, the corrupt addl Judge was not being given Judgeship (as shown on TimeNow) would be damning him.

    His support of Katju thus is odd, unless he wants to indirectly indicate that it was not his decision, but that of Sonia Gandhi and he was merely being used.
     
  9. anoop_mig25

    anoop_mig25 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,195
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Re: Katju firm on ‘corrupt judge’ claims, poses six questions to ex CJ

    why did mr katju waited so long and now he must prove that said judge was corrupt or he must tender apology
     
  10. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Katju firm on ‘corrupt judge’ claims, poses six questions to ex CJ

    When you are in Govt service or holding high office to include being a Judge, you cannot criticise the system as per rules and protocol.

    Hence, it would be incorrect of Katju to have opened up the can of worms when in office.

    On retirement, he should have opened up.

    I believe he retired in 2011.

    His courtroom was one of the fastest in the Supreme Court disposing off 100-plus matters in a week.

    He is also a maverick.
     
  11. pkroyal

    pkroyal Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2013
    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    717
    Location:
    jaipur
    Re: Katju firm on ‘corrupt judge’ claims, poses six questions to ex CJ

    Many of the judges like others holding high office are actually " bechara" ( help less ) people.

    They are elevated but :-

    Lack Moral fibre
    Petty pygmies elevated to high offices
    Suffer from ennui'
    Are over impressed by people in power ( read. Govt of the day)
    Look for petty favours
    Don't fully comprehend what independence of judiciary really means.
    It is only a few, who preside over a court are truly remembered, rest are as good as the II class Munsif Magistrate.
     
  12. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Katju firm on ‘corrupt judge’ claims, poses six questions to ex CJ

    They are but Indians.

    We are but left overs of the colonial hangover as many would say. :)
     
    pkroyal likes this.
  13. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Katju firm on ‘corrupt judge’ claims, poses six questions to ex CJ

    **********************************************************************************

    This is the most idiotic statement ever made by anyone with some modicum of sense and logic.

    Democracy is about liberty and not licence.

    If the IB does not report on the shenanigans of a person who is to be elevated to a high office that will decide the fate of the citizenry or the fate of a Nation, then who should? Could the writer tell us?

    Even when a domestic help is employed, we are advised to get a police verification and those who don't come to grief.

    All promotions of senior Military officers and bureaucrats are cleared by IB that looks into the 'spoken' and cognizable reputation.to include corruption and misdemeanour,

    How if the IB reports can be politicised, what makes the author feel that anything in this or any other country is free of political influences? If one feel he has been denied by a political IB report, does he not have the right to appeal to the very Court that should not be politicised in the first place?

    I am surprised that the author is a legal commentator and possibly a lawyer. I would never have him to plead my case.

    On the issue that these revelations will induce further 'political control' is misplaced. These revelations have merely indicated that the earlier system of the Govt and CJI deciding appointment as also the collegium system are both flawed.

    These revelations of Katju only suggest that there should be judicial reforms with all stakeholder involved and Parliament passing the Act. What is so bad about reforming the system?



    So, why should Judges be absolved of the same, more so when the fate of litigants lie in their hand for honest, non partisan and unbiased judgement?

    It is not only the most obtuse observer will fail to recognise the political implications of what he has said, it is the blind and partisan like the author of this article who will feel Katju is wrong.

    Selection of a Judge is indeed a matter of judgement. But is it to be unilateral? Is it not fair that there is an overall view with all concerned involved? if the IN is not believed, then why should one believe the Judge and his Judgement? One can't be selective, can one?

    It is correct that the PM is within his right to ask for clarification as to why a person recommended has been overruled. But is the PM and the Govt also right to force an issue on the CJI who has earlier on, based on his 'judgement' along with the collegium, rejected a Judge? And if the CJI has made a U turn, without discussing with the collegium, which selects, does it not stink of a scam? Ruma Pal, who was a part of the collegium has concurred with Katju's contentions are correct. Can the CJI take inilateral decisions that is the only valid if the collegium concurs? In this case, it is obvious the collegium was not consulted and it was the CJI's unilateral decision. Should the CJI not explain why he avoided the collegium and took an unilateral decision when the man was once rejected?
     
  14. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Katju firm on ‘corrupt judge’ claims, poses six questions to ex CJ

    Restoring the judiciary’s credibility

    The very credibility of the judiciary is at stake after recent allegations of misconduct against judges. The time is now ripe for reforming the process of judicial appointments to ensure that the judiciary is accountable to the public and free from interference

    Justice Markandey Katju, a former judge of the Supreme Court and no stranger to controversy, has once again set the cat among the pigeons by alleging that three former Chief Justices of India made “improper compromises” under political pressure in confirming the appointment of a judge they knew to be corrupt. Making the revelations, Justice Katju said he wanted to show “how the system actually works, whatever it is in theory.”

    It might therefore be instructive to understand the theory behind the system of appointing judges, for a better understanding of its actual working.

    Birth of collegium system
    The tussle between the executive and the judiciary for control over the process of judicial appointments has its origins in what has come to be known as the First Judges’ case. In that case the Supreme Court, led by former Chief Justice of India P.N. Bhagwati came down in favour of the executive stating that “the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of the High Court and such other Judges of the High Court and of the Supreme Court as the Central Government may deem it necessary to consult, are merely constitutional functionaries having a consultative role and the power of appointment resides solely and exclusively in the Central Government.”

    In 1993 however, in the Second Judges’ case, the Supreme Court led by former Chief Justice of India J.S. Verma overruled the First Judges’ case. According to Justice Verma, in the actual working of this process, even the executive attached primacy to the role of the Chief Justice of India in the matter of appointments to the superior judiciary. He thus went on to hold that “the selection should be made as a result of a participatory consultative process in which the executive should have the power to act as a mere check on the exercise of power by the Chief Justice of India, to achieve the constitutional purpose.”

    This decision led to the birth of the collegium system of appointing judges to the higher judiciary, the working of which was set out in the Third Judges’ case by former Chief Justice of India S.P. Bharucha. The collegium system of appointing judges to the High Court is of particular relevance for our purposes; the collegium must take into account the opinion of the Chief Justice of India which “would be entitled to the greatest weight,” the views of other Judges of the High Court who may have been consulted and the views of colleagues on the Supreme Court bench “who are conversant with the affairs of the concerned High Court.”

    Thus, the executive was completely frozen out of the process of judicial appointments, with Justice Bharucha declaring that “the Chief Justice of India, acting on the institutional advice available to him, was the surest and safest bet for preservation of the independence of the judiciary.”

    Secrecy of the collegium
    Justice Bharucha’s confidence in the office of the Chief Justice of India has been given short shrift by Justice Katju’s explosive allegations. According to Justice Katju, when he was appointed Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, he came across a judge he believed to be corrupt. He subsequently asked for an inquiry to be conducted into his affairs by the Intelligence Bureau, and claims his worst fears were confirmed by the then Chief Justice of India R.C. Lahoti. The collegium headed by Justice Lahoti subsequently made a recommendation to the Central government that the judge in question must not be given a renewal after his current term expired.

    But instead, claims Justice Katju, this judge was given an additional term by Justice Lahoti himself under political pressure from a Congress minister. Justice Katju alleges that the judge in question was close to an ally of the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government and this led to Justice Lahoti being pressured into granting the extension. Justice Katju alleges that the same judge was granted an extension by Justice Lahoti’s successor, Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, and was made a permanent judge by his successor, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.

    Sadly, it is nigh on impossible to ascertain the truth behind Justice Katju’s allegations. The reason behind this is the manner in which the collegium system functions, as illustrated by the controversy involving former Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir last year. The Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court wrote a letter to the President and Prime Minister stating that he was overlooked primarily because he had opposed the elevation of Justice Kabir’s sister as a High Court Judge when he was in the Calcutta High Court. His request, that he be shown the material which formed the basis of Justice Kabir’s decision regarding his competence and character was denied.

    Again, the allegations made by the Gujarat Chief Justice are unverifiable as the collegium has now become nothing more than a cabal, a secret society whose deliberations are not a matter of public record. In fact, a Bill has been introduced in the Rajya Sabha to do away with the collegium system altogether and to replace it with a National Judicial Appointments Commission. While a constitutional amendment has already been passed in the Rajya Sabha last year to pave the way for the commission, the new government has been conspicuously silent on the issue.

    This silence is perhaps best explained by the recent tussle between the judiciary and the government over the appointment of Gopal Subramanium as a Supreme Court judge. Withdrawing his candidature after his name had been proposed by the collegium for elevation to the Supreme Court, Mr. Subramanium spoke of how adverse reports about him by the Intelligence Bureau were “a result of carefully planted leaks aimed at generating doubts in the minds of the collegium and of the public as to the suitability and propriety of appointing me as a judge of the Supreme Court.”

    Reforming process of appointments
    All of this lends further credence to Justice Katju’s contention that while the executive has no role in the appointment of judges, in theory it continues to exert significant pressure on the collegium in practice. Speaking in the Second Judges’ case, Justice Verma opined that the collegium system would ensure “the hyperbolic executive intrusion to impose its own selectee on the superior judiciary is effectively controlled and curbed.” If the Gopal Subramanium episode and the allegations of Justice Katju are anything to go by, the exact opposite seems to be happening.

    Given the current state of affairs, the Judicial Appointments Commission would somewhat institutionalise what is already happening in practice as it would consist of the Chief Justice of India, the two seniormost judges of the Supreme Court, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons. Even if the government has in fact made a conscious decision to stick with the current collegium system, the very least it can do is to take immediate steps to reform its working. Prime among these should be to give the collegium constitutional status and to bring its deliberations within the purview of the Right to Information Act.

    Considering the serious allegations of sexual misconduct made recently against two retired Supreme Court judges, coupled with allegations made by Justice Katju, the very credibility of the judiciary is now at stake. The time is now ripe for reforming the process of judicial appointments to ensure that the judiciary is accountable to the public at large, while at the same time being free from any interference. Only then can the judiciary live up to its billing, in the words of Justice Krishna Iyer, of acting “as a bulwark against executive excesses and misuse of power by the executive.”

    Restoring the judiciary’s credibility - The Hindu
     
  15. SLASH

    SLASH Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,156
    Likes Received:
    458
    Re: Katju firm on ‘corrupt judge’ claims, poses six questions to ex CJ

    This episode clearly shows that the powerful netas in our country will never be found guilty for their crimes. These supreme court judges including Mr. Katju are greedy for their post. He could have resigned from his post and gone out in public back in 2005. Why did he wait for so long? What took him 9 years to come out with this expose? Judges have the power of life or death. If a corrupt judge is appointed he/she can ruin many lives.
     
  16. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
  17. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Katju firm on ‘corrupt judge’ claims, poses six questions to ex CJ

    t’s time to amend law on contempt of court

    The present law of contempt of court in India is a hangover of the original law on this subject in England. This originated from an undelivered judgment of J Wilmot in 1765, where the judge said the power of contempt of court was necessary to maintain the dignity and majesty of judges and vindicate their authority.

    But whence comes this dignity and authority of judges? In England, in feudal times, it came from the king, who was the fountain of justice, and would often decide cases himself. Later, when he had many other duties, he delegated judicial functions to his delegates, who were called judges. Thus, in a monarchy, the judge really exercises the delegated function of the king, and for this he requires the dignity, authority and majesty which a king must have, to secure obedience.

    In feudal times, the king was supreme, and the people were his subjects. They could not criticize him, and such criticism was punishable.
    In a democracy, however, this relationship is reversed. Now it is the people who are supreme (see Rousseau’s ‘Social Contract’), and all state authorities, including judges, are nothing but their servants.

    Hence in a democracy there is no need for judges to vindicate their authority or display pomp and majesty. Their authority comes not from fear of contempt but from the public confidence, and this in turn depends on their own conduct, integrity, impartiality, and learning.

    This view is accepted now even in England. As observed by Lord Salmon in AG vs Bbb (1981) A.C. 303, “The description contempt of court no doubt has a historical basis, but it is nevertheless misleading. Its object is not to protect the dignity of the court, but to protect the administration of justice”.

    “Justice is not a cloistered virtue,” said Lord Atkin. “It must suffer the scrutiny and outspoken comments of ordinary men”.

    In R. Vs. Commr. of Police (1968) 2 QB 150 Lord Denning observed, “Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself…All that we ask is that those who criticize us should remember that, from the nature of our duties, we cannot reply to their criticism. We cannot enter into public controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication”.

    Sometimes an upright judge is unjustifiably criticized. The best course of action for such a judge is to ignore baseless criticism (but pay heed to honest and correct criticism). He should have broad enough shoulders to shrug off baseless comments without getting perturbed or influenced.

    Once a British newspaper ran a banner headline calling the majority judges of the House of Lords who decided the Spycatcher case ( Attorney General vs. Guardian Newspaper, 1987 3 AllE.R.316) “YOU FOOLS”. Fali Nariman, who was present in England at that time, asked Lord Templeman, who was one of the majority, why the Judges did not take contempt action. Lord Templeman smiled, and said that judges in England took no notice of personal insults. Although he did not regard himself as a fool, others were entitled to their opinion.

    In Balogh vs Crown Court at Albon (1975) AC 373, the defendant told the Judge “You are a humourless automaton. Why don’t you self destruct?”. The judge smiled, but took no action.

    Now coming to the law of contempt in India, we find it is uncertain. Nariman described it in a speech as ‘Dog’s Law’.

    He quoted Bentham, who said that when a dog does something nasty we beat him for it. Similarly, the laws in England become known only when someone is punished by the courts. The same is true about the law of contempt in India, and thus it is a standing threat to freedom of speech.

    To illustrate, in Duda’s case AIR 1988 SC 1208, a Union Cabinet minister said that the Supreme Court sympathized with zamindars and bank magnates.

    He further said, “FERA violators, bride burners, and a whole horde of reactionaries have found their haven in the Supreme Court” and that Supreme Court judges have “unconcealed sympathy for the haves”. No action was taken against him. Nariman asked whether if such a comment had been made by an ordinary man the court would have taken no action.

    Moreover, in an earlier decision, in the case of Namboodiripad (former CM of Kerala), who accused Supreme Court judges of being biased in favour of the rich, (an allegation similar to that of the Union minister in Duda’s case) the court convicted Namboodiripad for contempt (AIR 1770 2015). Where is the certainty or consistency in the law ?

    We have two provisions in our Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) which gives citizens freedom of speech, and Articles 129 and 215 which give the Supreme Court and High Court the power of contempt. How are these provisions to be reconciled. In my opinion, since Article 19(1)(a) is the right of the people who are supreme in a democracy, while Articles 129 and 215 are powers of judges, who are servants of the people, the reconciliation can only be done by holding that freedom of speech is primary, while the contempt power is only secondary.

    It follows that the contempt power cannot be exercised because people are criticizing a judge. It can only be exercised if someone makes the functioning of the judge impossible eg if while a judge is hearing a case someone jumps on to the dias and tries to run away with the court file, or if he attacks or threatens a witness.

    If someone calls a judge a fool inside the courtroom and goes away, in my opinion it is not contempt, for he has not stopped the functioning of the court.

    But if he keeps shouting in court the whole day, and despite warning does not stop, he is obviously not letting the court function, and this would be contempt. After all disputes in society have to be adjudicated, and judges must decide cases to justify payment of salaries to them.

    I submit that the time has come now for Parliament, the judiciary and others concerned to take a fresh look at the law of contempt of court in the light of what I have said above, and bring about necessary amendments.

    It’s time to amend law on contempt of court | Times of India Blogs
     
  18. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Katju firm on ‘corrupt judge’ claims, poses six questions to ex CJ

    Whatever the process to appoint judges, men of character must handle it

    Till 1993, judges were appointed to the Supreme Court and high courts by the President, read the Union government, after consulting the Chief Justice of India. The CJI seldom disagreed with the executive.

    Two significant judgments dramatically altered the process. In 1993, a nine-judge bench in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association case took away the executive's primacy in appointment of judges and gave it to the CJI.

    In 1998, another nine-judge bench answered a presidential reference by laying down an elaborate procedure - the CJI-headed collegium system - to select and recommend to the government persons to be appointed as judges of the SC and HCs.

    The executive was given the option of returning a name for the collegium's reconsideration. If the name was re-sent, the executive was bound to appoint him. For the last 16 years, this judge-appoint-judge system has been in operation.

    Markandey Katju has experience of both the systems. He was appointed a judge of Allahabad High Court by the executive in 1991. But his later appointments -- chief justice of Madras HC and transfer to Delhi HC and later as judge of SC in April 2006 - happened under the collegium system.

    He often gave vent to his intolerance towards corruption. In March 2007, while sitting with Justice S B Sinha, he had said, "Everyone wants to loot this country. The only deterrent is to hang a few corrupt persons from the lamp post. The law does not permit us to do it, but otherwise we would prefer to hang the corrupt."

    Katju, who would have preferred instant Taliban style justice in the absence of limitations of law, strangely remained tight lipped for nearly a decade on a 'corrupt judge' continuing in Madras HC.

    His revelations have stirred a fresh debate on what would be the ideal process for appointment of judges to the SC and HCs? Both systems had their share of questionable products.

    Two famous judges - Y V Chandrachud and P N Bhagwati - were appointed by the executive. They capitulated to political pressure much more gravely than Justice R C Lahoti, who was taken in by the then wily law minister H R Bhardwaj in 2005 and granted extension of service to a 'corrupt judge" despite the collegium unanimously deciding not to continue with his services.

    On April 28, 1976, a five-judge bench pronounced judgment in the ADM Jabalpur case and buried all fundamental rights, including the most fundamental among fundamental rights - the right to life - under political pressure of the Indira Gandhi regime which wielded draconian powers during Emergency.

    How on earth could a country survive without its citizens having the right to life? But the famous four - then CJI A N Ray and Justices M H Beg, Y V Chandrachud and P N Bhagwati - capitulated. They gave primacy to self-preservation over preservation of citizens' life.

    Under tremendous political pressure and threat, Justice H R Khanna held his head high to record a dissent note saying right to life could never be suspended. He stood tall among the five, and is still standing tall in court number two of the Supreme Court. Khanna too was a product of the same system which had appointed the other four.

    Khanna valued life. The rewards of capitulation went to Justice Beg, who was appointed CJI by the Indira regime. If the government thought of humiliating Khanna by superseding him, it failed. He tendered his resignation.

    Khanna showed that a man's character shines brightest in times of pressure and adversity. The SC realized this six years later and spoke out in S P Gupta case [1982 (2) SCR 365].

    "Judges should be stern stuff and tough fire, unbending before power, economic or political and they must uphold the core principle of rule of law which says 'be you ever so high, the law is above you'," it had said. Immortal words penned more than three decades ago, but seldom practiced.

    Whatever process a political system devises for appointment of judges, it would lose its efficacy if it is manned by people who do not put country over self and place integrity above politics and posts.

    As president of the Constituent Assembly, Rajendra Prasad, who went on to become the first President, had warned of this while moving for adoption of the Constitution in 1949.

    He had said, "Whatever the Constitution may or may not provide, the welfare of the country will depend upon the men who administer it. If the people who are elected are capable and men of character and integrity, they will be able to make the best even of a defective Constitution.

    "If they are lacking in these, the Constitution cannot help the country, After all, a Constitution, like a machine, is a lifeless thing. It acquires life because of the men who control and operate it. And India needs today nothing more than a set of honest men who will have the interest of the country before them."

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...acter-must-handle-it/articleshow/39136615.cms
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2014
  19. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Katju firm on ‘corrupt judge’ claims, poses six questions to ex CJ

    Justice Katju maybe a loose cannon.

    However, he is raising issues that is shaking the very foundation of the judicial system.

    Is he right?

    Or is he wrong to do so?
     
  20. anoop_mig25

    anoop_mig25 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,195
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Re: Katju firm on ‘corrupt judge’ claims, poses six questions to ex CJ


    My point is if the process of selecting judges are not proper and same is cocern of MR katju then me must had raised his voice earlier .why didnt he raised it earlier.He was made Judje through same process.Why didnt he protested then

    And now why he is raising issue when cocern judge is dead , UPA is not in power , after 10 yeras and also his term coming to end
     
  21. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Katju firm on ‘corrupt judge’ claims, poses six questions to ex CJ

    I say forget timing and so on.

    There is corruption, pressure and chaos in the judicial system, which in the current environment is the sole institution that gives some hope to the people to address their woes.

    Must the system be cleansed or should be nitpick as to why Katju was silent.

    As I see it Katju could not have spoken out while he was a Judge. as no Military man can speak out against the system while in Service. It would then lower the dignity of the system and of the hallowed office.
     

Share This Page