Posts
Judicial Reforms Welcome: Chief Justice of
Chief Justice of
At a time when the judiciary is groaning under the load of over 3 crore pending cases at various levels and its image dented by sporadic reports of corruption among Judges, Justice Balakrishnan put up a brave face and asked "who is afraid of reforms" as it was "our constant endeavor to fast track the justice delivery process".
Though new law minister Veerappa Moily did not macro-elaborate his plans for judicial reforms except for saying "it is long overdue", he did stress the Manmohan Singh government's earnest desire to make the wheels of justice move faster to help the poor afford litigation.
The CJI is one with him on this aspect. "The 4,000 gram nyayalays would soon start functioning easing a lot of load on the subordinate courts. These would also save the poor litigants from traveling long distances to reach district courts for justice," he said.
But, the intermittent reports in the media about corruption in judiciary appear to be an irritant for Justice Balakrishnan. He says the present recruitment process for subordinate judiciary needs tightening.
He feels that an All India Judicial Services Examination, on the lines of Indian Civil Services Examination conducted by Union Public Service Commission, could provide a solution. The successful candidates could be appointed as District Judges directly and they could choose their state of posting, he said.
The CJI would not elaborate as the matter is subjudice before the SC.
Government t for judiciary recruitment revamps
The foul smell of corruption is increasingly enveloping the temples of justice, popularly referred to as courts. Almost everyone is aware of the level of corruption in the lower stream of justice. But, the screamers about instances of corruption in the higher judiciary appear to have forced the government and the CJI to look afresh for an effective antidote.
The common refrain is that there is something virulently wrong with the present process of selection of judges for the higher judiciary -- the high courts and the Supreme Court. For long, the Executive had this grouse that
Recently, on February 27, a day after the last session of the 14th Lok Sabha, renowned lawyer, parliamentarian and then Speaker Somnath Chatterjee articulated the grievance most succinctly -- "I still believe that
At that time, the entire political apparatus was virtually bracing up for the Lok Sabha elections and it appeared that Somnathda's terse words were lost in the poll cacophony. But, it does not appear so. His words actually had a lasting impression on those who matter in the new UPA government.
A thinking is gaining ground among the top echelons of the ruling coalition political leaders that the system of "Judges appointing Judges" has to undergo a change and the Executive must have a definitive say in it rather than performing the role of a mere postman -- sending to the President the names recommended by the Collegium headed by CJI for appointment as judges.
What could be the shape of the `say' that the Executive wants to have in the appointment of judges is not precise, but it is definitely tired of playing the role of a postman. The
Before the setting up of the independent Judicial Appointment Committee (JAC) in 2006, the judges were chosen by the senior member of the Executive through a process that was not only secretive but was roundly criticised as "a tap on the shoulder" method.
The new mechanism for selecting high court judges was to bring an end to the secretive process of picking judges, which the `Guardian' newspaper found responsible for producing a higher judiciary that was almost exclusively white and male (of the 108 HC judges, only 10 were women).
However, initial experience showed that JAC was virtually "old wine in a new bottle". The `Guardian' in January 2008 wrote a critical piece on the JAC's method of appointment. It said: "Those appointed since last September are remarkably similar to those selected under the old process. All 10 are white male barristers."
So, if the UPA government wants, in the wake of disturbing reports about corruption in the judiciary, to effect a systemic change in the process for appointment of judges, then it should put its proposal in open for a debate among the legal fraternity and parliamentarians.
The grievance may be well founded, for in no other country do the judges appoint themselves. But, the solution should not be worse off. To strike a balance, would it be acceptable to both the Judiciary and the Executive to have equal say in the appointment of judges?
Life sentence can be up to 20 yrs too: Supreme Court of India
The statute may provide that life sentence means a minimum of 14 years in prison, but keeping in view the gravity of offence a trial court can be well within law to award a 20-year jail term to a lifer, ruled the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
This ruling came from a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal, which dismissed an appeal by Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammad Saiyed, a Latif gang member convicted of shooting down nine members of a rival gang including its leader Hansraj Trivedi in 1992 in Ahmedabad.
Upholding the imposition of the 20-year sentence on Saiyed, Justice Sathasivam, writing the judgment for the Bench, said there was a reason to award the extreme penalty and hence the designated TADA court was justified in imposing life sentence with a condition that it should not be less than 20 years.
The Bench reminded the judiciary at large about the pitfalls in adopting a lenient approach while awarding punishment in cases that involved heinous crimes and said "too sympathetic a view merely on account of lapse of time" would be counter-productive and against the interest of the society which needed to be cared for.
"Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime... The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which both the criminal and the victim belong," the Bench said.
It said the designated court was right in observing while awarding the sentence that the main accused had brutally murdered the nine persons who were playing cards in Radhika Gymkhana and that was the reason to sentence him with the extreme penalty, which would meet the ends of justice.
Therefore, the decision to award a 20-year sentence was appropriate and there was no ground to modify it, it said.
Constant threat of consumer law on doctors not good for patients: Supreme Court
Doctors are no doubt liable under the Consumer Protection Act, but too much of threat of the law and court cases could be counter productive for patients as these could deter medical professionals from exercising their discretion, the Supreme Court has said.
Chennai-based orthopaedic surgeon Dr C P Sreekumar would not agree less. For, the apex court absolved him of the charge of medical negligence that hung over his head since 1992 and quashed a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum order asking him to pay a patient Rs 5.5 lakh. Looking into the legal aspects and judgments of the apex court relating to the issue, a Bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and D K Jain said: "Too much suspicion about the negligence of attending doctors and frequent interference by courts would be a very dangerous proposition as it would prevent doctors from taking decisions which could result in complications and in this situation the patient would be the ultimate sufferer."
Sreekumar had detected a hairline fracture on the leg of one
The state forum dismissed the claim saying the patient had not been able to prove mishandling by the hospital staff or negligence or deficiency in the services rendered by Sreekumar.
However, the National Consumer Forum on
After examining the case records and hospital documents of Ramanujam, the Bench said: "Merely because of the fact that there is some divergence of opinion as to the proper procedure to be adopted, it cannot be said with certainty that Dr Sreekumar was grossly remiss in going for hemiarthroplasty."
Justice Bedi, writing the judgment for the Bench, said: "It would, thus, be seen that Dr Sreekumar's decision in choosing hemiarthroplasty with respect to a patient of 42 years of age was not as palpably erroneous or unacceptable as to dub it as a case of professional negligence.” It allowed Sreekumar's appeal and dismissed the claim of Ramanujam.
‘Bride burners must be hanged’: Supreme Court of
- We are coming across a Large Number of Such Cases, Notes SC
Spiraling crime against women in matrimonial homes invited sharp reaction On Monday from the Supreme Court, which said those convicted of burning their wives for bringing insufficient dowry or for any other reason deserve no leniency and should be awarded capital punishment.
Though it was a case relating to burning of woman by her husband because of her protest against his alleged illicit relationship, the Vacation Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Deepak Verma took the opportunity to vent its ire against those persons who resort to bride burning.
Angered by the plea of the convict challenging life sentence, the Bench was of the firm opinion that persons like him deserved no leniency and should be awarded death penalty. Though it threatened to issue notice to the appellant seeking his response to `why the punishment be not enhanced to death penalty', it adjourned hearing in the case when counsel Jasbir Malik pleaded that it was not a case of dowry harassment.
However, this did not deter the Bench from observing that to put an end to the barbaric practice of bride burning, courts should take a stern view and award death sentence.
"If people like you are hanged, then only will this barbaric practice stop. We are coming across a large number of bride burning and dowry death cases these days," it said.
In such cases if the trial court awards life sentence to the convict, the appellate courts should issue notice to the convict for enhancement of punishment, the Bench added.
The Bench's anguish was not ill-founded. If bride burning cases hovered around 5,000 every year, dowry death cases have kept heading northwards. In 2005, as many as 6,787 dowry death cases were reported. This increased to 7,618 in 2006 and 8,093 in 2007. National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) had reported a whopping 75,930 incidents of torture and cruelty against women in matrimonial homes in 2007.
Though the Supreme Court had consistently held the view that violence in matrimonial homes should be dealt with sternly, Justice Katju is known for his radical views in such cases. Just a couple of years back while hearing a corruption case relating to the fodder scam, he had observed that the corrupt should be hanged from the nearest lamp post.
The case in hand related to the death of one Rajni who in her dying declaration alleged that her husband Mahender Gulati, his elder brother Prem Kumar and the latter's wife Vimla had poured kerosene on her on December 9, 2003, and set her on fire. She had also accused Mahender of having an illicit relationship with Vimla and that the motive behind the crime was her protest against the affair.
A Bhiwandi trial court had convicted Mahender, Prem Kumar and Vimla of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The
‘No post-retirement rehab for tainted judges’: Supreme Court of
Adopting a `zero tolerance' policy towards stigmatized judges, the Supreme Court in an emphatic ruling has said that the taint acquired during judgeship will be a big disqualification for the person's post-retirement appointment as head of a tribunal or a commission.
Serious about maintaining public trust in judiciary as an institution, the SC said if an additional judge of a High Court was found ineligible for an extension or being confirmed as a judge, the same person could not be appointed as the head of a statutory body like the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC).
"Judiciary holds a central stage in promoting and strengthening democracy, human rights and rule of law. People's faith is the very foundation of any judiciary. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and therefore the people's faith in the judiciary cannot be afforded to be eroded," said a Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and M K Sharma.
Dealing with `who had been a judge of the HC' qualification for post-retiral appointments as head of tribunals and commissions, the Bench said: "A judge whose tenure ended by way of non-extension as a stigma would not come within the purview of the definition of the term `has been a judge of the HC'."
This judgment, delivered on March 6 but made available on Thursday, came in the peculiar case concerning Justice S Kannadasan, who had to demit office as a judge of the Madras HC on November 5, 2005, after serving for two years as an additional judge as his term was neither extended nor was he confirmed as a permanent judge.
In November 2006, the TN government appointed him as an additional advocate general. In June 2008, the HC in a full court meeting presided by then Chief Justice resolved to treat Kannadasan as a former judge of the HC and decided to recommended his name along with two others for appointment as the chairman of SCDRC.
From the three, the TN government chose Justice Kannadasan as the chief of SCDRC. Interestingly, acting on the judicial side, the HC had on December 12 last year allowed PILs which had challenged his appointment as president of SRDRC. Justice Kannadasan had moved the SC challenging the HC's order.
While dismissing his appeal, the Bench headed by Justice Sinha expressed its anguish that the then CJ of the Madras HC appeared to have taken lightly the decision of the Collegiums headed by the Chief Justice of India not to confirm the services of Justice Kannadasan as a judge of HC, which had required him to quit the HC on November 5, 2005.
Noticing the cogent reason for the Collegium's decision not to confirm Justice Kannadasan as a permanent judge, the Bench asked: "An additional judge who had not been made permanent, technically could be appointed as an acting or additional judge but then the question which was required to be asked was: Should a person who had not been found fit be so appointed? The answer to the aforementioned question clearly would be a big emphatic `no'."
Justice Sinha, writing the judgment for the Bench, said "If a person has made himself disqualified to hold the post of a judge, the Chief Justice should not consider his name at all" for appointment to any statutory post like president of SCDRC.
What followed was even more hard-hitting. "If the collegiums of the Supreme Court judges including the CJI, which is a constitutional authority in the matter of appointment of judges and re-appointment of additional judges, did not find him (Justice Kannadasan) eligible, it would be beyond anybody's comprehension as to how the Chief Justice of a high court could find him eligible/suitable for holding statutory post requiring possession of qualification of holder of a constitutional office," the Bench said.
Supreme Court of India deadline on High Security Number plates
Supreme Court on Tuesday set a three-month deadline for the Centre and the state governments to implement high security registration plates (HSRPs), removing all ambiguity about the mandatory nature of its earlier order on the issue.
The SC had on
The development means that the state governments will soon be getting after the motor vehicle owners to switch to the HSRPs in order to carry out the order. The court had, in its earlier judgment, dismissed challenges to the scheme holding it to be in public interest. The HSRP can track down stolen vehicles through satellite monitoring since it is fitted with a security chip, thus preventing the misuse of such vehicles in crimes.” Use of stolen vehicles in crimes, especially terrorism related offences, are increasing steadily and this can be controlled to a large extent by implementation of the HSRP,'' the court had said.
When most of the states did not implement the court's year-old order, petitioner Maninderjit Singh Bitta moved an application seeking a directive to the governments to take urgent steps. Bitta said that it was a matter of concern that except for a few states none had implemented the HSRP.
TRAI gets Supreme Court of
- It Will Also Examine Capping Of Subscription Charges to Broadcasters
The Supreme Court on Thursday gave the green signal to TRAI to work out a fresh tariff regime that would determine how much a consumer paid for watching TV channels.
And it would work this out without being caged by the stinging observations of TDSAT, which had directed TRAI to study the matter afresh and issue a comprehensive order covering all aspects including the issue of subscription base.
While TRAI counsel Harish Salve agreed to look into the matter without being bound by TDSAT directive for reworking the amount to be levied from consumers, it was senior advocate Fali S Nariman who argued that TRAI should also look into the grievance of broacasters.
Nariman said while TRAI had capped the tariff to be levied from consumers for watching TV channels, the broadcasters were made to cough up astronomical amounts to cable operators (MSOs) to carry the channels to the homes. He said the amount has gone up from Rs 6 crore in 2004 to Rs 33 crore at present.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishna and Justice P Sathasivam and J M Panchal brushed aside the objection of senior advocate C S Vaidyananthan, appearing for MSOs, that the issue of capping the carrier charges was not the subject matter in the appeal.
It said: “TRAI shall also consider the feasibility of putting cap on subscription charges to the broadcasters and any other allied aspects in this regard.” “The TRAI may also consider the matter de novo as regards all other relevant aspects and give a report to this court by
TRAI had filled the appeal in the SC alleging that TDSAT’s decision to strike down its traffic regulations has put the people at the mercy of broadcasters who generally club a good channel with a number of not so good channels and offer them as a bouquet with a ‘take all or none’ condition.
Source: The Times of India
No comments:
Post a Comment