Experts weigh in on the opposition leaders petition to impeach Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. If it happens, it will be the first time a motion to remove a sitting CJI is moved in Parliament.
Justice A.P. Shah also says 4 judges who have questioned Chief Justice of India didn’t breach any code of conduct and had instead upheld constitutional values.
It’s almost been a month since CPM leader Sitaram Yechury announced that discussions for impeachment had begun, but the Congress hasn’t revealed its cards.
Sitaram Yechury of CPI-M has said that the opposition is considering a move to impeach the present Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra. Experts weigh in.
Justice Iqbal Ahmed Ansari says CJI must not give anyone reason to complain, not only judges and lawyers, even litigants must not be able to raise doubts.
In a country where unemployment is at a historic high, the national anxiety isn’t about jobs — it’s about reach. Aspirations have shifted from employment to engagement, from careers to content.
This doubtless is a remarkable feat on the part of Justice Chelameswar. Dignified, proper, frank and taciturn in turn whenever it warranted, everything about the interview seems right, (barring, of course, the mike and acoustics!). But in the interstices of conversation and his eloquent silence and the occasional Mmms lay the nuggets.
For once, he put the sagacious old legal eggheads’ accusations about the propriety of January 12, 2018 presser to rest and hopefully shushed them for all times. Good that he wasn’t judgmental in elaborating if the accusation could be deemed antediluvian, even anachronistic in times when the changes wrought have been humongous that upset the symbiotic comfort zone or a legacy of past reparative measures of layered closeness. But the discerning realized that the criticisms were shallow and status quoits and entirely bereft of the ground reality. Institutional integrity is at the heart of the matter. The googly that Thapar bowled in the death over was comfortably swept for a six over the fine leg boundary!
The other issue that Justice Chelameswar emphasized was the need for plurality as a safeguard to uphold judicial rectitude and integrity in the eye of a citizen. Be it Judge Loya’s case or the Prasad Educational Trust case or the Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case, among many others, the common man’s faith and perception of the judicial system has indeed been breached. It has doubtless been far from edifying. Not something that citizens ever expected given the trust they repose on the apex court.
Another unexpected fall-out of this interaction is that Justice Chelameswar with his words (‘if Gogoi were denied the chiefship, this would be proof that what the four judges had said in their January 12 press conference was “true” ’) has virtually “ensured and sealed” the elevation of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as the next CJI. This government, for all its derring-do and egregious blunders will dare not tinker with it.
But the one that for me takes the cake and is going to haunt all future retiring judges (as also all government functionaries in high perches) is the example he has set for himself: “…he would not seek or accept any government job after his retirement on June 22”. Never in my fallible memory of judiciary past, I recall any retiree or retired judge of the apex or any high court (like any other government official) turning down a PRS (Post-Retirement Sinecure). It’s like setting a cat among the pigeons. We often don’t realize the extent to which the PRS syndrome has breached and fouled our decision-making and polity; if truth be said, it has been the bane all around. Remove this and you are assured to get a better and fairer dispensation in all fields of public service. Let all post-retirement jobs be held during the service period. If it entails enhancing the retirement age to 70 or 75, please go do it. But sorry no PRS – no carrots need be dangled. Judges are like any other humans and aren’t Martian men to expect them to respond differently.
Justice Chelameswar is right. Impeachment would be an ill advised move. It would wedge the political firmament deep into the judiciary, something that would further weaken institutional autonomy. The fact that the learned CJI is unable to carry his four seniormost colleagues – the rest of the collegium, in a sense – is something all actors need to step back from. Whether media or higher judiciary, efforts by the executive to intrude are seldom benign or well intentioned.
This doubtless is a remarkable feat on the part of Justice Chelameswar. Dignified, proper, frank and taciturn in turn whenever it warranted, everything about the interview seems right, (barring, of course, the mike and acoustics!). But in the interstices of conversation and his eloquent silence and the occasional Mmms lay the nuggets.
For once, he put the sagacious old legal eggheads’ accusations about the propriety of January 12, 2018 presser to rest and hopefully shushed them for all times. Good that he wasn’t judgmental in elaborating if the accusation could be deemed antediluvian, even anachronistic in times when the changes wrought have been humongous that upset the symbiotic comfort zone or a legacy of past reparative measures of layered closeness. But the discerning realized that the criticisms were shallow and status quoits and entirely bereft of the ground reality. Institutional integrity is at the heart of the matter. The googly that Thapar bowled in the death over was comfortably swept for a six over the fine leg boundary!
The other issue that Justice Chelameswar emphasized was the need for plurality as a safeguard to uphold judicial rectitude and integrity in the eye of a citizen. Be it Judge Loya’s case or the Prasad Educational Trust case or the Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case, among many others, the common man’s faith and perception of the judicial system has indeed been breached. It has doubtless been far from edifying. Not something that citizens ever expected given the trust they repose on the apex court.
Another unexpected fall-out of this interaction is that Justice Chelameswar with his words (‘if Gogoi were denied the chiefship, this would be proof that what the four judges had said in their January 12 press conference was “true” ’) has virtually “ensured and sealed” the elevation of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as the next CJI. This government, for all its derring-do and egregious blunders will dare not tinker with it.
But the one that for me takes the cake and is going to haunt all future retiring judges (as also all government functionaries in high perches) is the example he has set for himself: “…he would not seek or accept any government job after his retirement on June 22”. Never in my fallible memory of judiciary past, I recall any retiree or retired judge of the apex or any high court (like any other government official) turning down a PRS (Post-Retirement Sinecure). It’s like setting a cat among the pigeons. We often don’t realize the extent to which the PRS syndrome has breached and fouled our decision-making and polity; if truth be said, it has been the bane all around. Remove this and you are assured to get a better and fairer dispensation in all fields of public service. Let all post-retirement jobs be held during the service period. If it entails enhancing the retirement age to 70 or 75, please go do it. But sorry no PRS – no carrots need be dangled. Judges are like any other humans and aren’t Martian men to expect them to respond differently.
Justice Chelameswar is right. Impeachment would be an ill advised move. It would wedge the political firmament deep into the judiciary, something that would further weaken institutional autonomy. The fact that the learned CJI is unable to carry his four seniormost colleagues – the rest of the collegium, in a sense – is something all actors need to step back from. Whether media or higher judiciary, efforts by the executive to intrude are seldom benign or well intentioned.