The controversy relating to the disclosure of judges’ assets has achieved, for the moment, a happy resolution. A vigorous debate among the public, former judges, leaders of the Bar, Bar Associations, High Court judges and last but not the least the Chief Justice of India — is a sign of a vibrant democracy. The method and content of the disclosure are still opaque and may require further debate.
The Prime Minister and the Chief Justice demand more number of courts — in their thousands. This is part of the pathological arrears syndrome. The truth is: more courts, more arrears, more lazy judges, more examples of Parkinson’s Law and Peter Principle. The real cause of the escalating arrears is the absence of accountability and transparency.
The UPA 100 day program includes a road-map for judicial reform. Recently, at the Conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers, both the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of India talked about the need to ensure speedy justice.
D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR Posted online: Saturday , Aug 22, 2009 at 0323 hrs It is a matter of utmost paradox that the chief justice of the most powerful Supreme Court in the world should be expressing apprehension for the safety and security of the judges of the superior courts in this country by saying that revealing the particulars of assets of the judges and throwing open the information to the public domain may result in harassment to judges and in turn prevent the judges from performing their duties without fear or favour. He has also expressed his fear that this may impair the independence of judges and affect their functioning.
Judges at India's Supreme Court have agreed to make public details about their financial assets following an intense public debate. Analyst Manoj Mitta says a lot more needs to be done to make India's judiciary transparent.
Conflict of interest legislation ensures that when government officials decide issues of public policy, their personal interests do not cloud their judgment -- that their decisions will be based solely on what is best for the public as a whole. Conflict of interest laws achieve this objective in two ways.
Anyone familiar with India would be aware of the remarkable paradoxes of the country characterized by obscene wealth in the hands of a few “billionaires” among whom are 4 of the ten richest men in the world, existing side by side with appalling poverty where more than 78% of the population lives on less than Rs. 20 (45 cents) per day.
If the Indian judicature is not to degenerate into a jejune institutional caricature, democracy must assert itself, and it must cease to be a simulacrum of Westminster judges with judicial wigs, jackets and robed apparel. The truth about the robed brethren must be an open book.
When one examines the hopes and fears that one has from judiciary, it is necessary to define the role that one expects the judiciary to play in the country.
The UK’s new Supreme Court will adopt a refreshingly open approach to the outside world when it takes over from the law lords in little more than a year from now
Two recent judgements of the Supreme Court on Judicial Activism and PILs have expectedly generated a spirited controversy within the Supreme Court and outside about the scope and limits of the court’s jurisdiction in PILs and about Judicial Activism in general.
The recent statements by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) that his is a Constitutional office and therefore exempt from the Right to Information (RTI) Act , has justifiably drawn much criticism.
In 1993, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court laid down a new system for making appointments of judges to the high courts and Supreme Court.
The judiciary in the country today has come to enjoy enormous powers. It is not only the arbiter of disputes between citizens, between citizens and the State, between States and the Union, it also in purported exercise of powers to enforce fundamental rights, directs the governments to close down industries, commercial establishments, demolish jhuggis, remove hawkers and rickshaw pullers from the streets, prohibits strikes and bandhs etc. In short, it has come to be the most powerful institution of the State.
The foundations of public interest litigation were laid in the late 70s with cases like the Ratlam Municipalities case.
In a democracy the people should have the right to criticise judges. The purpose of the contempt power should not be to uphold the majesty and dignity of the court but only to enable it to function.
Before making detailed comments on the Bill, it is necessary to understand the problem of Judicial Accountability, which this Bill seeks to address.
The recent decision of the government to bring a bill to amend the Judges Inquiry Act and provide for the constitution of a National Judicial Council to inquire into complaints against errant judges is being perceived as a long awaited initiative to introduce some accountability for judges of the higher judiciary.
Is “democracy” a “good thing”? As the general elections approach, there is a concerted push to answer ‘yes’. Whereby, it is conveniently forgotten that for civil liberties to become a rallying cry, it was also necessary for the Emergency to be imposed! And, as one generation gives way before the next, another Emergency slowly creeps up onto an unwary nation.
Former Law Minister and Senior Advocate Shanti Bhushan releases his correspondence with the Judges of the Supreme Court, the President and the Prime Minister seeking an inquiry into certain allegations relating to Chief Justice of India A.S. Anand.
A SPATE of scams involving members of higher judiciary in bribery, corruption, sex, favoritism and abuse of power has come as a great shock to the people.
Can a citizen of India not criticise the Supreme Court’s decisions? Can she not criticise the procedures and management of the court? Is the court not supposed to be accountable? How will its accountability be enforced if it were made absolutely immune from public criticism?