Kudos is due to this judge of Karnataka High Court for clearing the stand of judges on declaration of assets. Read below:
CJI can't speak for all on assets issue: Karnataka HC judge
Excerpt from news story below:
In the first open dissent by a sitting judge against the Chief Justice of India’s stand on declaration of assets by the higher judiciary, Justice D V Shylendra Kumar of the Karnataka High Court has said that “it’s a misnomer to think that the judges of the superior courts are not ready to disclose their assets.”
Referring to CJI KG Balakrishnan's remarks that judges could be harassed if their assets were made public, Kumar wrote, "On a legal place the CJI does not have the authority to speak for all judges of the Supreme Court, or High Courts, unless any of them have either confided in the Chief Justice or have authorised him to speak on behalf of others."
It is a sign of a vibrant judiciary that there be a healthy debate within judiciary on merits of issues like declaration of judges' assets. These are issues of national importance and cannot be the purview merely of top judiciary or a commission.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Ministry of Home Affairs rethinking on CrPC amendments
The issue of CrPC amendment is again gathering steam now... or rather some well-meaning souls are trying to put life back into a half dead act which has not been notified.
CrPC amendments: MHA asks law panel to suggest way out
Some excerpts and my comments:
Strong protests by lawyers, who are opposed to one of the amendments on the ground that it gives discretionary powers to police not to arrest a person involved in an offence having maximum sentence of seven years, has forced the MHA to do a rethink on whether or not to notify the amendments.
As if the public thinks lawyers are the thought-leaders and ideals in Indian society? Who are the lawyers trying to benefit but themselves, since they will have to forego the daily bread and butter involved in arranging bail etc after the needless arrests are made.
Sources in the MHA said one reason for this amendment was that every year lakhs of innocent people are arrested without any basis. Even the third report of the National Police Commission had said that about 60 per cent of the arrests in the country were unnecessary and unjustified.
Unnecessary arrests are the real issue. Without police reforms and better trained police, one cannot expect police to exercise good judgment and proper investigation before arrests. Till that is done, it is best to do away with provisions which give police arbitrary powers and help to become instruments in hands of powerful people to settle scores against adversaries by putting false cases.
CrPC amendments: MHA asks law panel to suggest way out
Some excerpts and my comments:
Strong protests by lawyers, who are opposed to one of the amendments on the ground that it gives discretionary powers to police not to arrest a person involved in an offence having maximum sentence of seven years, has forced the MHA to do a rethink on whether or not to notify the amendments.
As if the public thinks lawyers are the thought-leaders and ideals in Indian society? Who are the lawyers trying to benefit but themselves, since they will have to forego the daily bread and butter involved in arranging bail etc after the needless arrests are made.
Sources in the MHA said one reason for this amendment was that every year lakhs of innocent people are arrested without any basis. Even the third report of the National Police Commission had said that about 60 per cent of the arrests in the country were unnecessary and unjustified.
Unnecessary arrests are the real issue. Without police reforms and better trained police, one cannot expect police to exercise good judgment and proper investigation before arrests. Till that is done, it is best to do away with provisions which give police arbitrary powers and help to become instruments in hands of powerful people to settle scores against adversaries by putting false cases.
PIL in Gujarat HC on delays in maintenance cases
The judicial system is India is creaking in all places. Read news below about a PIL filed in Gujarat HC.
There is gross delay in granting alimony , PIL tells high court
It is sometimes a wonder whether all those who claim India as largest democracy, largest this and largest that really have any sense of pain about common citizens who are at receiving end of judicial delays?
There is gross delay in granting alimony , PIL tells high court
The counsel further submitted that despite clear-cut provisions in CrPC and positive directions of the high court "it is observed that the victims and the needy people for maintenance are loitering in family courts for many months, and sometime years together, but effective, speedy and actual justice is not delivered to them within the stipulated time-frame of60 days''.
Giving examples, the counsel submitted that whenever the maintenance application is filed before the family court, the first hearing date is fixed after three months and for old pending applications, the hearing is adjourned for two to three months. This is as per the details obtained from the adjournment chart and the board maintained by the court, he submitted.It is sometimes a wonder whether all those who claim India as largest democracy, largest this and largest that really have any sense of pain about common citizens who are at receiving end of judicial delays?
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
CJs want power supply to courts, what says PM now?
The recent news of PM exhorting about need to remove backlog of court cases has got an interesting rejoinder from the justices of courts.
Backlog? First ensure power supply, say CJs
“Do you expect a trial court judge to achieve the case disposal target when he has to sit all day under a fan that stands still and a court room that is packed with litigants creating an unworkable condition? They are not asking for air-conditioners but electricity to make the fan whirl,” said a CJ protesting against perpetual criticism faced by judiciary for the pendency.
This concern found a prominent reflection in the 21-point resolution passed by the chief justices. “The CJs of HCs shall take up the matter with the state governments on the aspect of supply of electricity to subordinate courts during working hours and to impress upon the state governments to ensure that no power cuts be allowed during court working hours and generator sets, as back up supply for electricity, be installed in court complexes, especially in the rural areas having acute power shortage,” the resolution said.
Backlog? First ensure power supply, say CJs
“Do you expect a trial court judge to achieve the case disposal target when he has to sit all day under a fan that stands still and a court room that is packed with litigants creating an unworkable condition? They are not asking for air-conditioners but electricity to make the fan whirl,” said a CJ protesting against perpetual criticism faced by judiciary for the pendency.
This concern found a prominent reflection in the 21-point resolution passed by the chief justices. “The CJs of HCs shall take up the matter with the state governments on the aspect of supply of electricity to subordinate courts during working hours and to impress upon the state governments to ensure that no power cuts be allowed during court working hours and generator sets, as back up supply for electricity, be installed in court complexes, especially in the rural areas having acute power shortage,” the resolution said.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Another SC judge recuses from provident fund siphoning case
What exactly is wrong with attitude of senior judiciary? Yes, we are not talking about District or even High court, but judges of the supreme court!
They don' t want to be subject to the same rules which they wholeheartedly want other public servants and public to follow.
Read news of recent 'altercation' between SC judge and SC lawyers:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080808/jsp/frontpage/story_9663362.jsp
Some excerpts from news and my comments follow:
“I am not a sanyasi that I can keep my cool,” Justice B.N. Agarwal said and withdrew from the case after warning senior counsel and former law minister Shanti Bhushan not to argue like a “street urchin”.
Isn't this more of an emotional tantrum where judge wants to show himself off as a responsible parent in face of childish behaviour from senior lawyer? Let's see next what did lawyer say to judge.
When the court reconvened today after yesterday’s daylong hearing, Agarwal took offence at Bhushan’s argument that Balakrishnan’s instructions gave the impression that the court was trying to shield “corrupt” judicial officers.
“These remarks are contemptuous,” Agarwal thundered.
Yes of course. In name of contempt of court, everyone including media, common people, and bloggers like me are scared to say anything which might be construed as contempt of court. And who decides what is contempt of court? Of course the judges!
Exactly. Mr Bhushan has said it clearly what is nagging the minds of common public of India for so long. If common public, and even politicians can face false charges and be ready to face trial; what is so special about judges?
The concept being touted about is independence of judiciary. Is protection from false cases alone enough to ensure independence of judiciary? What about lure of money which corrupt politicians and businesspeople may be too ready to shower upon judiciary? How do we ensure judiciary remains independent from that?
“You have no respect for anybody. Not even one judge of the Supreme Court,” Agarwal fumed and then passed orders saying that “since it was not conducive to hear the case” he was recusing himself.
Well Mr judge of Supreme Court, even common people are losing faith in judges of SC. It was Chief Justice of supreme court who recently said that judges should not be pressed to declare their assets because it may lead to false cases against them. Then who protects common public when common people have to face false cases, many a time with support of corrupt police and executive? People in responsible positions should gladly accept *higher* standards of disclosure than common public! It is upto them to suggest ways how false cases can be avoided or such people punished for filing false cases. You cannot simply shirk away this responsibility with a holier-than-thou attitude.
Now another supreme court judge has recused himself from the case. What kind of a game is this where judges simply recuse themselves from an important case, which involves pension money of common people?
They don' t want to be subject to the same rules which they wholeheartedly want other public servants and public to follow.
Read news of recent 'altercation' between SC judge and SC lawyers:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080808/jsp/frontpage/story_9663362.jsp
Some excerpts from news and my comments follow:
“I am not a sanyasi that I can keep my cool,” Justice B.N. Agarwal said and withdrew from the case after warning senior counsel and former law minister Shanti Bhushan not to argue like a “street urchin”.
Isn't this more of an emotional tantrum where judge wants to show himself off as a responsible parent in face of childish behaviour from senior lawyer? Let's see next what did lawyer say to judge.
When the court reconvened today after yesterday’s daylong hearing, Agarwal took offence at Bhushan’s argument that Balakrishnan’s instructions gave the impression that the court was trying to shield “corrupt” judicial officers.
“These remarks are contemptuous,” Agarwal thundered.
Yes of course. In name of contempt of court, everyone including media, common people, and bloggers like me are scared to say anything which might be construed as contempt of court. And who decides what is contempt of court? Of course the judges!
Sparks flew again when Bhushan Senior contended that an earlier judgment, which makes the Chief Justice’s nod mandatory to file an FIR or a chargesheet against a sitting judge, should not apply in this case.
“Public confidence demands that the court order a free and impartial inquiry into the case,” he argued.
“If that protection is removed, what will happen to the independence of the judiciary?” Agarwal replied. “Cases will be filed against honest judges and they will be arrested and thrown in jails.”
But Bhushan insisted that the role of the judges in the scam be probed under the general criminal law which applies to all.
If they are honest, nothing will come out of the probe, he said. “The Supreme Court should not give the impression that it is trying to shield corrupt judicial officers,” he repeated.Exactly. Mr Bhushan has said it clearly what is nagging the minds of common public of India for so long. If common public, and even politicians can face false charges and be ready to face trial; what is so special about judges?
The concept being touted about is independence of judiciary. Is protection from false cases alone enough to ensure independence of judiciary? What about lure of money which corrupt politicians and businesspeople may be too ready to shower upon judiciary? How do we ensure judiciary remains independent from that?
“You have no respect for anybody. Not even one judge of the Supreme Court,” Agarwal fumed and then passed orders saying that “since it was not conducive to hear the case” he was recusing himself.
Well Mr judge of Supreme Court, even common people are losing faith in judges of SC. It was Chief Justice of supreme court who recently said that judges should not be pressed to declare their assets because it may lead to false cases against them. Then who protects common public when common people have to face false cases, many a time with support of corrupt police and executive? People in responsible positions should gladly accept *higher* standards of disclosure than common public! It is upto them to suggest ways how false cases can be avoided or such people punished for filing false cases. You cannot simply shirk away this responsibility with a holier-than-thou attitude.
Now another supreme court judge has recused himself from the case. What kind of a game is this where judges simply recuse themselves from an important case, which involves pension money of common people?
Indian police encourages abuses: Human Rights Watch
From recent news:
The US-based group Human Rights Watch said "India is modernising rapidly, but the police continue to use their old methods: abuse and threats."
"India's policing system facilitates and even encourages abuses," the 118-page report said.
It said there has been little change in attitudes, training or equipment since the police was formed in colonial times with the aim to control the population.
Read full news:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/Indian-police-encourages-abuses-Human-Rights-Watch/articleshow/4857440.cms
The US-based group Human Rights Watch said "India is modernising rapidly, but the police continue to use their old methods: abuse and threats."
"India's policing system facilitates and even encourages abuses," the 118-page report said.
It said there has been little change in attitudes, training or equipment since the police was formed in colonial times with the aim to control the population.
Read full news:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/Indian-police-encourages-abuses-Human-Rights-Watch/articleshow/4857440.cms
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Govt backtraces on judges' asset declaration in bill
What was the govt and law minister Mr Moily thinking? That they will allow judges to 'declare' assets but not made public? Declare but not public means declare to other judges? Right, what does 'declare' mean ? Declare to my family? To my pets? Read news below:
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/isolated-upa-chickens-out-on-judges-assets-bill/98510-3.html
Exceprt from the news:
Opposition leader and BJP member Arun Jaitley argued, "Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which has been applied to any person anywhere in the country who is desirous of contesting an election - his assets are to be made public. But a different interpretation will now have to be given when it comes to assets of judges, the same cannot be made public."
Now politicians have been declaring assets without fail both in Lok Sabha and MLA elections. Some of the MPs have declared assets in excess of 500 Cr. That has not led to any false or frivolous cases being filed against MPs. Because people will not hound someone if there is nothing to hide. Declaration of assets and transparency leads to more trust in minds of public and hence leads to higher governance standards and overall efficiency.
Judges should now hold themselves accountable to the same high standards to which they have been holding others. Else what right do they have to sit in judgment?
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/isolated-upa-chickens-out-on-judges-assets-bill/98510-3.html
Exceprt from the news:
Opposition leader and BJP member Arun Jaitley argued, "Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which has been applied to any person anywhere in the country who is desirous of contesting an election - his assets are to be made public. But a different interpretation will now have to be given when it comes to assets of judges, the same cannot be made public."
Now politicians have been declaring assets without fail both in Lok Sabha and MLA elections. Some of the MPs have declared assets in excess of 500 Cr. That has not led to any false or frivolous cases being filed against MPs. Because people will not hound someone if there is nothing to hide. Declaration of assets and transparency leads to more trust in minds of public and hence leads to higher governance standards and overall efficiency.
Judges should now hold themselves accountable to the same high standards to which they have been holding others. Else what right do they have to sit in judgment?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)