Supreme Court concerned about judges throwing mud on other judges!

This was bound to happen… The image of judiciary has taken a severe beating in last few years.  Now even Supreme Court is concerned that at least judges don’t throw mud at their own brethren.  It is difficult enough when public is doing it!  News below:

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article440114.ece

The Supreme Court has cautioned the High Courts against using intemperate language and passing castigating strictures on judges of the lower judiciary. For, doing so would diminish the image of judiciary in the eyes of the public.

A vacation Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and C.K. Prasad, quoting earlier judgments, stressed the need for the High Courts adopting the utmost judicial restraint against using strong language as in such matters the judicial officer concerned had no remedy in law to vindicate his position.

The Bench allowed an appeal filed by a senior judicial officer against certain observations made by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Bench expunged them, holding that these remarks were bound to adversely affect the appellant's image in the eyes of the public and his credibility as a judicial officer, and would also affect his career.

As Principal District Judge, Kadapa, the appellant granted a temporary injunction in favour of plaintiffs in a suit and restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaint schedule property.

On an appeal by the defendants, a Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order and made scathing criticism of the appellant as a judicial officer, and recorded highly disparaging remarks.

Allowing the appeal by the judicial officer for expunction of the remarks, the Supreme Court said: “The judges in the higher courts have also a duty to ensure judicial discipline and respect for the judiciary from all concerned. The respect for the judiciary is not enhanced when judges at the lower level are criticised intemperately and castigated publicly. No greater damage can be done to the administration of justice and to the confidence of the people in the judiciary than when the judges of the higher courts publicly express lack of faith in the subordinate judges for one reason or the other.”

Judicial authoritarianism

It said: “The Division Bench of the High Court may be fully justified in setting aside the order of injunction, but there was absolutely no justification for its making highly disparaging remarks against the appellant as a judicial officer, casting doubts on his ability to decide the cases objectively. The use of the words ‘out of sheer arrogance and disrespect to the lawful order' and the expression ‘judicial authoritarianism' show that the Division Bench ignored the words of caution administered by this court in several judgments.”

And they say judges need independence – from kin maybe!

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100523/main6.htm

Chandigarh, May 22
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has as many as 16 Judges with their kith and kin practising in the same court. The Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has already forwarded their list to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice.

The list was sent in response to a communication received by the high court from the ministry. In the beginning of this year, the ministry had asked the high courts across the country to identify and furnish the list of all such judges who have their kith and kin practising in the same court.

Available information suggests that some of the judges here not only have their sons, daughters but also their siblings and other relations like nephews and brothers-in-law practising in the same court. At least four judges have their relatives working in the office of the Punjab and Haryana advocates-general office. Some other judges have relatives appearing before the Bench in the same court.

The list forwarded by the high court mentions the names of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Justice Ashutosh Mohunta, Justice M.M. Kumar, Justice S.K. Mittal, Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice V.K. Sharma, Justice TPS Mann, Justice Mahesh Grover, Justice S.D Anand, Justice K.C Puri, Justice K.S. Ahluwalia, Justice Sabina, Justice Jora Singh, Justice M.S. Sullar, Justice Gurdev Singh and Justice Harbans Lal.

The issue again gained momentum only recently after Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily told The Tribune in an exclusive interview that the Law Ministry was asking the judges to give an undertaking at the time of their elevation that they would not function in a court where their relatives were practising.

Moily’s assertion had come in the presence of Attorney-General Goolam E. Vahanvati, Additional Solicitor-General Mohan Jain and Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda at a ceremony to felicitate the law minister.

The Law Commission has discussed the issue in its 230th report as well. The commission has made it clear that it is against the policy of transferring Chief Justices; and he should rather be from the same high court. But while making appointment of judges, advocates with kith and kin practising in a high court, should not be posted in the same high court. This would eliminate “uncle judges”, it said.The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s former chief justice, Justice B. K. Roy, too had earlier issued an administrative order barring a group of 10-12 judges from hearing any case argued by their relatives. In his order, Justice Roy had said: “It was generally believed that A, B, C and D (all judges) constituted a mutual cooperative society in the sense it was believed that each of the four judges (A, B, C and D) would protect the sons of the three other judges.” The order had led to widespread protests.

List of judges

Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel

Justice Ashutosh Mohunta

Justice M.M. Kumar

Justice S.K. Mittal

Justice Hemant Gupta

Justice V.K. Sharma

Justice TPS Mann

Justice Mahesh Grover

Justice S.D Anand

Justice K.C Puri

Justice K.S. Ahluwalia

Justice Sabina

Justice Jora Singh

Justice M.S. Sullar

Justice Gurdev Singh

Justice Harbans Lal

Judiciary unable to check judge’s antecedents, can they check accused’s?

Following news shows how lax are judiciary’s standards in checking the antecedents of one of their own.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/indore-absconder-worked-as-judge-in-same-city-till-past-caught-up-with-him/621726/

A man who was declared an absconder by a court in Indore worked as a judge in a superior court in the same city for years before his past caught up with him.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has suspended Additional District and Sessions Judge Narendra Kumar Jain for concealing the matter.

As a student of Christian College in Indore, Jain, along with four friends, was involved in a brawl with a hotel owner and his son in 1983. The owner, whose nasal bone was broken, lodged a police complaint that led to the arrest of Jain and his friends.

Jain was released on bail and appeared in court once in 1985. He was declared an absconder by the court when he did not appear later despite repeated summons.

Jain cleared an examination meant for judicial officers in 1994 but suppressed the fact that he was involved in a criminal case and was facing trial.

Judge who uncovered scam in Bangalore court is transferred

Such is the secrecy and protection afforded to powerful vested interests who control the judiciary from behind, that no case of judicial corruption can ever be investigated thoroughly and properly.  Read news below:

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=MIRRORNEW&BaseHref=BGMIR/2010/05/14&PageLabel=6&EntityId=Ar00600&ViewMode=HTML&GZ=T

A Gurumurthy, the judge in whose court a scam involving court officials, banks and financial institutions to the tune of hundreds of crores of rupees was unearthed, has been transferred.

    Though transfers are routine, with four notifications on April 24 transferring District Judges, Fast Track Court Judges, Senior Civil Judges and Civil Judges, this transfer comes just three weeks after a departmental inquiry under the judge was initiated.

    Gurumurthy, the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mayo Hall), is one of the 33 judges of the ‘Senior Civil Judges’ cadre who has been transferred, according to the notification (no GOB(I).4(2)/2010) issued by the Registrar General of the High Court.
    The notification says he will take charge as the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramdurg, Belgaum district, from May 24.

PROBE CURTAILED
It is feared that with the transfer of the judge, the departmental inquiry would suffer. It is learnt nearly a month after the inquiry was initiated in the first week of April, Gurumurthy submitted his report. But the same was sent back to him with directions for further probe. Now with less than two weeks for his transfer, Gurumurthy’s report may not be complete as the XIV ACMM has more than one lakh cases before it, according to sources.

    Registrar General of the High Court, R B Budihal refused to talk about the issue. His office replied he would not entertain any journalist seeking information on the issue.

    Bangalore Mirror had, on May 4, reported how thousands of citizens were cheated using fake seals of judges’ signatures and fake court papers for serving non-bailable warrants (NBW) on them.

    Some 70,000 fake NBWs were said to have been issued in the last three years to people across the country.

    Three officials of the court - Tulasamma, the sirastedar, Balasubramani, the bench clerk, and Narasaiah, a case worker, who allegedly ran a ‘parallel court’ in collusion with banks and their advocates, were suspended.

    Banks and court staff colluded to issue NBWs to borrowers whose cheques had bounced. After these fake NBWs were issued, the banks, either with the help of police or musclemen, forced the debtors to pay up the entire loan amount.

    As per the law, no sworn statement of any bank manager has been recorded. The fraud also involved sending fake NBWs to people who were not under the jurisdiction of the court, including Kolkata, Mumbai, Allahabad and Bihar.

Office of Chief Justice of India is covered under RTI now

Maybe it is coincidence, but two days before retirement of CJI, the office of CJI has been agreed to be a Public Authority under RTI Act.  See recent decision by CIC below.  Also the important points are made bold below:

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000279 dated 14.3.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19
Appellant       -    Shri Nemi Chand Jain
Respondent    -    Supreme Court of India (SCI)
Decision announced: 10.5.2010

Facts:
Shri Nemi Chand Jain of Jaipur, Rajasthan applied to the Registrar,
Supreme Court of India on 27.11.08 seeking the following information:
“Copy of complete file relating to complaint dated 2.4.2007 against
Justice Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur.”
To this Shri Nemi Chand Jain received a response from CPIO Shri Raj Pal
Arora, Addl. Registrar dated 18.12.08 informing him as follows:
“I write to inform you that the complaints against Hon’ble Judges of
the High Court or Supreme Court are not handled by the Registry.
Therefore, the information is not held by or under the control of the
Registry and the CPIO, Supreme Court of India cannot accede to
your request.”

Aggrieved, Shri Nemi Chand Jain moved an appeal on 30.12.08 before
Appellate Authority, Supreme Court of India on the following grounds:
“As per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act the Learned CPIO should have
transferred the application within five days to the concerned public
authority with whom the information is available and inform the
Appellant / Applicant.”

Upon this, Appellate Authority Shri M. P. Bhadran in his order of 17.1.09 in
appeal No. 2 of 2009 decided as follows:
“Since the Hon’ble CJI is not a Public Authority within the meaning
of Sec. 2(h) of the RTI Act the application cannot be transferred as
per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act as requested by the appellant.  I find
that no error in the impugned order.  There is no merit in this appeal
and it is only to be dismissed.”

Appellant Shri Jain has then moved his second appeal before us with the
following prayer:
“It is prayed that the impugned order dated 17.1.09 passed by 
Learned Appellate Authority and order dated 18.12.2008
passed by Learned CPIO may kindly be quashed and set 
aside, and the Learned CPIO may be directed to transfer the 
application to the appropriate Authority with whom the
information sought by Appellant is available.”

This prayer is grounded on the following contentions:
“Because the Hon’ble CJI is Public Authority within the meaning of
Section 2(b) of the RTI Act and hence the impugned order is liable
to the set aside.”

The appeal was heard by videoconference with Jaipur on 10.5.2010. The
following are present:

Appellant
Shri Nemi Chand Jain

Respondents
1. Shri Raj Pal Arora, CPIO / Addl. Registrar
2. Ms. Asha Ahuja, RTI Branch Officer, SCI
3. Shri Devadatt Kamat, Advocate

Shri Devadatt Kamat, Learned Counsel for the Supreme Court presented
his vakalatnama, which has been taken on record. Shri Kamat also submitted
that subsequent to the decision in the present case, it has been agreed by the
Supreme Court of India that the Office of Chief Justice of India is indeed a public authority within the meaning of sec. 2(h) of the RTI Act.  In light of this, the
information sought by appellant Shri Nemi Chand Jain was that the complaint of
2.4.07 against Justice Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma of the Rajasthan High Court,
Jaipur had in fact been received, seen by the Chief Justice of India and lodged.
There is no file on the complaint.  Upon this, appellant Shri Nemi Chand Jain
submitted that he had no further information to seek.

DECISION NOTICE

It is now established and agreed to by all parties that the office of Chief
Justice of India is a Public Authority within the meaning of Sec. 2(h) of the RTI Act, as part of the Supreme Court of India.  The order of Appellate Authority, Shri
M. P. Bhadran on appeal No. 2 of 2009 dated 17.1.09 is, therefore, set aside.
Learned Counsel for the Supreme Court of India has also provided the
information sought by appellant Shri Nemi Chand Jain, in the hearing.  The
appeal is thus allowed.  There will be no costs.

Announced in the hearing.  Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
10.5.2010
Authenticated true copy.  Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
10.5.2010

AP Governor says RTI used for blackmail -- file RTI on that

I will take excerpt of news below and refute the points made by governor of AP.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/hyderabad/governor-says-rti-used-blackmail-tool-655

Hyderabad, May 10: The Governor, Mr ESL Narasimhan, condemned the misuse of the Right to Information (RTI) Act by some people, who have “vested interests”.

He said the RTI Act has become a tool to “blackmail” the government and its machinery.

“I can say with complete authority that the RTI Act is used for blackmailing people. If that was not the case, why do the same group of people apply for the RTI Act so often,” he asked while speaking at the Administrative Staff College of India, after inaugurating the Forum for Good Governance.

Ok.  The logic is that if some people file RTI so often, they must be using it for blackmail!  Well, governor ji, maybe you forget but the 86 year old ex-governor of Andhra Pradesh had left his office few months back after some pictures of his romps with young women were shown on TV.  Such was the secrecy after that event that the media was stopped by High court order to show any further footage etc of the episode.  When government along with judiciary is hell-bent on stopping people from knowing what is going on within government, RTI is the only forum available for people to find out the truth behind government’s inner workings.

Citing his own experiences on the misuse of the Act, Mr Narasimhan said: “I receive RTI applications that seek information on the dinner I hosted for my guests. They ask me to disclose the guest-list, the menu and the expenditure incurred for the purpose.” He said is not spared even when he visits temples. “The other day, I went to a temple. A person filed an RTI seeking information about whether my visit to the temple was an official visit? If so, who did I meet and what was the discussion? I replied that it was not an official visit. I met the Almighty at the temple and had long deliberations with him. I also prayed to him to please give good sense to such people,” he remarked.

You may think it is irritating to get RTIs about your dinners.  But do not forget that people have very little faith in about people in government regarding use of taxpayer funds at their disposal.  Even an ex-minister Shashi Tharoor was found to be staying in 5-star hotels instead of finding a more reasonable accommodation given the austerity drive of government in place at the time.  If government was more transparent of less cruel with public money, people will have no desire to waste their time in filing RTIs asking about dinners hosted by you.  That trust has yet to be built by government representatives.

Are judges powerless in face of misuse of law?

The judges seem to be toothless in face of misuse of law!  Such misuse of laws is the real reason behind 3.1 crore pending cases in Indian courts.  When there is incentive to misuse the law, and no disincentive against it; more number of cases is exactly the result.  While truly affected people fear going to courts, those who want to misuse the law are feted by lawyers, and indirectly by judiciary!

Married sister can’t be booked under DV Act

New Delhi, May 10, 2010

Married sisters of a man, living separately from the joint family, cannot be prosecuted under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act on a complaint of his wife, a Delhi court has held.

Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau expressed concern over “misuse” of special laws by making women parties in the petitions just because they happened to be sisters of the man.

“Married sisters residing in their own matrimonial houses are not a part of the shared household or joint family, as contemplated under the Domestic Violence Act,” the court said.

It, however, clarified that the married sisters were not denied the rights, which could be claimed from their parental home.

The observations were made by the court while dismissing the plea of a woman who challenged an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, refusing to summon married sisters of her estranged husband in the case under the Domestic Violence Act.