Cjar-Admin

"Democracy expects openness and openness is concomitant of free society. Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” a full Bench of the Delhi High court held on the 12th of January 2010. The historic judgment which rules that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a “public authority” that comes under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act also held that judges of superior courts should make public their assets. "Judicial independence was not a judge’s personal privilege but a responsibility cast upon him"

Karnataka High Court’s Justice DV Shylendra Kumar voices on his blog, his disapproval and the impropriety of Karnataka CJ Dinakaran continuing to exercise administrative functions while “his past conduct and exploits do not inspire the confidence of the people”. He points to the abuse and misuse of power in CJ Dinakaran’s declining permission to hold a meeting of all judges of the High Court to discuss the function and conduct of Justice Dinakaran himself

This is Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s reply (filed in the Supreme Court on the 8th of Decemeber, 2009) to the contempt petition filed by Mr. Harish Salve on the basis on an interview given by Mr. Bhushan to the Tehelka magazine.

The notice of motion for presenting an address to the President of India for the removal of Justice Dinakaran, Chief Justice of the Karanataka High Court, under Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of Constitution of India for his various acts of misbehavior, including dishonest judicial orders, irregular and dishonest administrative actions, etc. Also annexed is an explanatory note on the motion for impeachement. The motion is proposed to be signed by M.P.s of the Rajya Sabha and then be submitted to the Vice President.

Another victory for transparency and accountability as the Chief Information Commission has held the appointment of judges is a “public activity” which cannot be withheld from disclosure, directing the Supreme Court to make public the records of appointing three justices of the apex court who superseded their seniors. RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal had sought complete correspondence between authorities concerned relating to appointment of Justices H L Dattu, A K Ganguly and R M Lodha superseding seniority of Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and V K Gupta as allegedly objected by Prime Minister's Office

Here’s an interesting communication – a letter written by the Supreme Court Bar Association President Mr. M. N. Krishnamani to the Editor, Tehelka, regarding an earlier interview published in the magazine wherein Mr. Prashant Bhushan had stated that Jusitce Kapadia had violated the conflict of interest principle in deciding the Vendanta Cases despite having sharing in Sterlite (a subsidiary company). Mr. Krishnamani lauds Justice Kapadia’s ‘no one objected’ stand in not recusing himself, it being in accordance with the laid down rule in the Code of Conduct for Judges while he goes on to assert the rampant corruption in the judiciary. For this and Mr. Bhushan’s pointed reply

There have been a spate of recusals from the Indian Supreme Court in the past. However recent trends point towards confusing and differing standards for recusal of a judge. As public pressure now mounts towards a determination of this question, we remain with the question – When faced with a conflict of interest, what standard should judges across the country follow? This article probes whether judges should recuse or should they offer to recuse and indicates that the Supreme Court precedent and past history offer a clear guide.

The Supreme Court on Monday, 2nd November, posted the Assets of Supreme Court judges on its website, clarifying that the declarations were being made on a voluntary basis only! This despite the fact that the decision to reveal assets on the website was taken on Aug. 26 in the backdrop of a raging controversy over resistance by the SC to answer a query regarding assets of judges. As this MailToday story reports, declarations lack information with some Judges giving only sketchy details and not mentioning the value of their movable and immovable assets.