This is yet another supersession of judges, not in the technical sense but in all other respects. Justice A.P. Shah, who retired from the office of Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court a week ago, was one of the finest judges in the country. He was also the senior most.

The study was conducted through secondary data collection, by a core group at the Campaign for Judicial Accountability & Reform. It was conducted over 3-4 months in the last quarter of 2009.

Justice AP Shah, responsible for such landmark judgments as the one on consensual gay sex, retired as Chief Justice of Delhi High Court after being overlooked for promotion to the Supreme Court.

A Supreme Court of India, and a Supreme Court for all Indians: these two versions can be radically different in terms of principle and content.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) K.G. Balakrishnan completed three years in office on January 13 and will retire on May 11.

THE Indian Supreme Court has a reputation for being a “people’s court” or, as one judge put it, a “last resort for the oppressed and bewildered”.

Justice A.P. Shah’s judgment in the Delhi high court on the applicability of the Right to Information (RTI) Act is as fine as any bench of the Supreme Court could deliver.

When justice is denied by any society, including a socialist, secular and democratic one as in India, expectations darken into depression.

NEW DELHI: While sharing a dais with Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan, senior advocate Fali Nariman recently attacked the Supreme Court collegium for its failure to promote the author of the historic homosexuality verdict, chief justice of the Delhi high court A P Shah.

Thanks to legal professionals the world around, the ‘dead’ language of Latin remains happily alive.

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.