The Judiciary Obituary was well written by none other than the 4 SC Judges some months ago. This was not because of the CJI’sCJI’s leaning towards the present rulers, but of putting pressure on the ruling elites. While the Institution of Judiciary itself is impartial, how can they expect the powers that be . It’s so ridiculous.
Learned lawyers and committed party officios have commented. The present drama between the judiciary themselves and with a Govt desperate to have its way in the legislature with its majority and the use of the ordinance route poses a great danger to our country. The solution may seem difficult but it will need a visionary statesman and a firm judiciary chief to take the steps to stop the dangers of the present Govt or rather politicians of any party who should be rudely woken up to what the future holds. We have many platidutes praising those who framed our Constitution
for political purposes failing to understand the wisdom of those who chartered it. The speech made by the late and great Dr Ambedkar while moving the resolution on the Constitution must be heard or read to keep the spirit of the Constitution alive today
Mr. Gupta, You have been a great journalists. Can you please explain your presence when the Hon’ble Supreme Court judges were holding press conference.
Can you please write an editorials about the quality of journalists and their characters. Don’t they write for money.
Justice dispensation system is too important to be left to the judiciary. Justice dispensation system is passing through its worst phase. The whole system is vitiated by corruption, favoritism and nepotism. And these features are in public domain now. Judiciary is being looked down upon, instead of being looked up to. Standards of jurisprudence have nose dived. Sanitization of the whole system is desperately needed.
I m impressed in this writing. But would like to discuss the solution. Notwithstanding, it’s a brave & brilliant attempt to Burress obebest possible view on this raging yet important problem.
shekhar was promised padmshriee y congress for barking agaisnt BJP but 2014 proved its delay n he desperately thinks 2019 may be his last chance before colluding to the lutyens’ gutter
Presently the appointments in SC and HC’s are made based on recommendations of State Govt and HC for high court judgeship and SC collegium for higher judiciary. In this system, nepotism has developed. IAS and IPS are selected by UPSC on the basis of competitive exam. Indian higher judiciary is only in the world which selects judges with recommendations. There is no representation of 85percent of Indian population. Only 3percentage Brahmins captured the high court and Supreme Court. How the Brahmins are doing justice in India, everybody knows. All citizens are equal before the law. Why the 85percent people are ignored and denied to the judgeship of High court and Supreme Court. Are we doing justice? Only 800families in India produce the judges of higher judiciary. This is a matter to think and discuss the selection of judges in higher judiciary. The monopoly should stop.
It is high time that judicial system is treated as a ‘service’ and brought under consumer laws including under the RTI, to make judges and the courts accountable to the people at large.
Too many PILs on flimsy grounds . The first question that needs to be addressed is whose interest is being addressed. The article begins on a factually correct note but deviates in the end of the article using false Flawed logic deviating from facts. CJI is the master of the roster as per law of the land and the same has been reiterated by a multi member bench. If the judge is found to be incorrect, corrective measures are already available. Many a supreme court judgement has been reviewed and modified. The need of the hour is adherence to facts and sadly, both lawyers and the media are found wanting. The Caravan report and the pother around it is a case in point.
NJAC should come and measure appointment should be done on through all india judicial service. Because there are no transparency in appointment of higher judicial service. So govt. Should think
Becoming a critic is easy than to have capability to hold the position from where you pronunce judgements as a part of majority opinion.Have you ever gone through the judgments given by constitutional benches of Honble Supreme Court?Logic and and arguments tendered by the learned judges look to be equally impressive but ultimately the majority prvails.It does not mean that minority Judges we’re of inferior legal accumen.In short I , very humbly emphasize that criticism of judgments from academic view point is welcome but it should not be used as an opportunity to paint the judges and judiciary in darker shades.
Sheer brilliance in commentating, Mr. Gupta, you old (watch) dog!
Always been wondering –right since my primary school social sciences lessons on our constitution, if it is really possible to ultimately totally untangle the strands of democratic power: legislature, the executive and the judiciary. I feel that is the ultimate root of all these complications. And it will always remain so, irreplaceably. The way ahead will always be polemic, hopelessly.
Though Judiciary needs reform but this is not the way the opposition or media is acting. Supreme Court rightly rejected the Judge Liya case it could well have ordered cbi enquiry and could have earned apalous , by not doing so the court has shown courage of acting righteously even under such pressure.
Transparency and fairness in judiciary is very important. Favoritism and nepotism have no place in justice delivery system. Sanitization of the whole Justice dispensation system including appointments is the need of the times. Constitution of Indian Judicial service on the lines of Indian Civil service will do real justice.
Things are not quite what they seem. The CJI has not reacted to the delay in finalization of Memorandum of Procedure or what has been the constraint in deciding the fate of the two nominees to the Supreme Court. Mr. Jetley may say that the Opposition is threatening the Judiciary but is it not the adverse decision given by one of nominated SC judges the cause of sitting on Collegiums recommendation. And it serves as a signal to the other High Court Judges that better be careful if you have any desire to get promoted. And what about the SC itself which had directed the Govt to try the Shahabudin Case under one Judge, from start to finish. But the Judge got changed when he refused to allow Mr. Amit Shah1s request. What action did the honourable SC took?
It’s not always transparent why some cases are admitted and others not, or how some cases get an earlier hearing than others and the administrative side of judiciary needs overhauling. Having said that it seems that you are actually incriminating the judiciary for being inefficient and biased perhaps while overtly stating that you don’t want to.
Anubhav analogy totally flawed. Here it is a case of saving the family from predators who instigate the wife to abandon the famïly and the husband saving the family with a daring attack on the predators and their paid agents.
Perfectly correct views. Few years or decades late – probably the fissure created by the press conference by the four SC judges gave that vital opening to finally pen it down now (better late than never!).
I also wonder that judiciary should also rise above what may be perceived as ‘conflict of interest’ in certain cases. When it was to decide the National Judicial Accountability Bill, could it have co-opted some eminent neutral people from public life including some retired judges and former lawyers in the debate to make the outcome appear more impartial? I believe it could have done so and given an important signal of SC’s intention to remain fair – of course it could have recuses itself from the case itself.
The Judiciary Obituary was well written by none other than the 4 SC Judges some months ago. This was not because of the CJI’sCJI’s leaning towards the present rulers, but of putting pressure on the ruling elites. While the Institution of Judiciary itself is impartial, how can they expect the powers that be . It’s so ridiculous.
Learned lawyers and committed party officios have commented. The present drama between the judiciary themselves and with a Govt desperate to have its way in the legislature with its majority and the use of the ordinance route poses a great danger to our country. The solution may seem difficult but it will need a visionary statesman and a firm judiciary chief to take the steps to stop the dangers of the present Govt or rather politicians of any party who should be rudely woken up to what the future holds. We have many platidutes praising those who framed our Constitution
for political purposes failing to understand the wisdom of those who chartered it. The speech made by the late and great Dr Ambedkar while moving the resolution on the Constitution must be heard or read to keep the spirit of the Constitution alive today
Mr. Gupta, You have been a great journalists. Can you please explain your presence when the Hon’ble Supreme Court judges were holding press conference.
Can you please write an editorials about the quality of journalists and their characters. Don’t they write for money.
Justice dispensation system is too important to be left to the judiciary. Justice dispensation system is passing through its worst phase. The whole system is vitiated by corruption, favoritism and nepotism. And these features are in public domain now. Judiciary is being looked down upon, instead of being looked up to. Standards of jurisprudence have nose dived. Sanitization of the whole system is desperately needed.
Error-…butress one’s best possible view…
I m impressed in this writing. But would like to discuss the solution. Notwithstanding, it’s a brave & brilliant attempt to Burress obebest possible view on this raging yet important problem.
Shekhar gupta n Congress n Lobby trying hard to get judgements in their favour…. judiciary really in danger from u all
shekhar was promised padmshriee y congress for barking agaisnt BJP but 2014 proved its delay n he desperately thinks 2019 may be his last chance before colluding to the lutyens’ gutter
Presently the appointments in SC and HC’s are made based on recommendations of State Govt and HC for high court judgeship and SC collegium for higher judiciary. In this system, nepotism has developed. IAS and IPS are selected by UPSC on the basis of competitive exam. Indian higher judiciary is only in the world which selects judges with recommendations. There is no representation of 85percent of Indian population. Only 3percentage Brahmins captured the high court and Supreme Court. How the Brahmins are doing justice in India, everybody knows. All citizens are equal before the law. Why the 85percent people are ignored and denied to the judgeship of High court and Supreme Court. Are we doing justice? Only 800families in India produce the judges of higher judiciary. This is a matter to think and discuss the selection of judges in higher judiciary. The monopoly should stop.
It is high time that judicial system is treated as a ‘service’ and brought under consumer laws including under the RTI, to make judges and the courts accountable to the people at large.
I agree. This should be done.
Indeed it seems judiciary is dying a “Natural Death”.
Too many PILs on flimsy grounds . The first question that needs to be addressed is whose interest is being addressed. The article begins on a factually correct note but deviates in the end of the article using false Flawed logic deviating from facts. CJI is the master of the roster as per law of the land and the same has been reiterated by a multi member bench. If the judge is found to be incorrect, corrective measures are already available. Many a supreme court judgement has been reviewed and modified. The need of the hour is adherence to facts and sadly, both lawyers and the media are found wanting. The Caravan report and the pother around it is a case in point.
NJAC should come and measure appointment should be done on through all india judicial service. Because there are no transparency in appointment of higher judicial service. So govt. Should think
When three judges of supreme court said , BJP said its internal matter .
When congress said then its threat of judiciary .
its threat by some person not a group of person.
Constitution Rights and Judicial Proceeding both co-related and strongly recomended by Indian Constitution.
BJP SAID THEN ITS GOOD AND OTHERS SAID THEN ITS THREAT.
An interesting invigourating and incisive article.Three cheers !
Isnt it an irony, though, that a H.R. Khanna Memorial Lecture at a KIIT Law School in 2012 was delivered actually by this same Justice Dipak Misra.
Sheer brilliance as in, as I was coming forward in pitch expecting the usual spin, was stunned and stumped by the googly in The second point!
What I have written is based on my experience as a student of law. It could not be better than what it was.
Becoming a critic is easy than to have capability to hold the position from where you pronunce judgements as a part of majority opinion.Have you ever gone through the judgments given by constitutional benches of Honble Supreme Court?Logic and and arguments tendered by the learned judges look to be equally impressive but ultimately the majority prvails.It does not mean that minority Judges we’re of inferior legal accumen.In short I , very humbly emphasize that criticism of judgments from academic view point is welcome but it should not be used as an opportunity to paint the judges and judiciary in darker shades.
Sheer brilliance in commentating, Mr. Gupta, you old (watch) dog!
Always been wondering –right since my primary school social sciences lessons on our constitution, if it is really possible to ultimately totally untangle the strands of democratic power: legislature, the executive and the judiciary. I feel that is the ultimate root of all these complications. And it will always remain so, irreplaceably. The way ahead will always be polemic, hopelessly.
Though Judiciary needs reform but this is not the way the opposition or media is acting. Supreme Court rightly rejected the Judge Liya case it could well have ordered cbi enquiry and could have earned apalous , by not doing so the court has shown courage of acting righteously even under such pressure.
Four out of five is a good score to have. The collegium is delivering some fine judges, and is working to improve its performance.
Transparency and fairness in judiciary is very important. Favoritism and nepotism have no place in justice delivery system. Sanitization of the whole Justice dispensation system including appointments is the need of the times. Constitution of Indian Judicial service on the lines of Indian Civil service will do real justice.
Things are not quite what they seem. The CJI has not reacted to the delay in finalization of Memorandum of Procedure or what has been the constraint in deciding the fate of the two nominees to the Supreme Court. Mr. Jetley may say that the Opposition is threatening the Judiciary but is it not the adverse decision given by one of nominated SC judges the cause of sitting on Collegiums recommendation. And it serves as a signal to the other High Court Judges that better be careful if you have any desire to get promoted. And what about the SC itself which had directed the Govt to try the Shahabudin Case under one Judge, from start to finish. But the Judge got changed when he refused to allow Mr. Amit Shah1s request. What action did the honourable SC took?
It’s not always transparent why some cases are admitted and others not, or how some cases get an earlier hearing than others and the administrative side of judiciary needs overhauling. Having said that it seems that you are actually incriminating the judiciary for being inefficient and biased perhaps while overtly stating that you don’t want to.
Anubhav analogy totally flawed. Here it is a case of saving the family from predators who instigate the wife to abandon the famïly and the husband saving the family with a daring attack on the predators and their paid agents.
Perfectly correct views. Few years or decades late – probably the fissure created by the press conference by the four SC judges gave that vital opening to finally pen it down now (better late than never!).
I also wonder that judiciary should also rise above what may be perceived as ‘conflict of interest’ in certain cases. When it was to decide the National Judicial Accountability Bill, could it have co-opted some eminent neutral people from public life including some retired judges and former lawyers in the debate to make the outcome appear more impartial? I believe it could have done so and given an important signal of SC’s intention to remain fair – of course it could have recuses itself from the case itself.