Admin

It is a well-settled principle of law that the presence of a conflict of interest — actual or potential — is sufficient to disqualify judges from participating in legal proceedings.

[gview file=”http://judicialreforms.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/TOI_Petitioners_didnt_have_say_on_kapadia_presence.pdf” height=”800px”] [gview file=”http://judicialreforms.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/TOI_judges_skirt_global_norms_on_conflict_of_interest.pdf” height=”800px”]

Chief Justice of India Sabyasachi Mukharji’s advice to Justice Ramaswami to desist from discharging judicial functions so long as investigations continued is worthy of emulation.

THE Supreme Court’s collegium comprising the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and four senior judges, which recommends appointees to the Supreme Court, exercises a crucial responsibility.

Little did Subash Chandra Agrawal know that his RTI petition would create a first in history. His request two years ago, seeking information on whether judges were filing details of their assets under their 1997 inhouse resolution to do so, has brought about such a turn that for the first time, the Supreme Court of India has knocked at the doors of a High Court seeking a relook into one of its orders.

WHEN SPECIAL CBI judge Rama Jain received an anonymous letter in January 2008, telling her that the provident funds of Class 3 and Class 4 employees of the Ghaziabad court were being siphoned off, she had no idea that she had stumbled onto the biggest judicial scam in the history of independent India.

On September 2, when a single judge of the Delhi High Court directed a beam of moral searchlight at the Supreme world saw a group of embarrassed brethren trying to ward off the harsh glare.

The ruling of the Delhi High Court in the CPIO versus S.C. Aggarwal case and the open letter by a group of jurists to the Chief Justice of India have brought to focus critical issues of transparency in the judiciary.

India's villages await justice