Democracy At Stake, Things Not In Order Says 4 Supreme Court of India(SCI)Judges - Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurien Joseph
on Friday Jan 12,2018 as they went public with complaints against the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra. The "rebel" judges - the four most-senior at the top court after the Chief Justice - said that "things are not in order" with what they described as "the administration of the Supreme Court". An independent judiciary is essential for a functioning democracy, they said. Asked if they believed the Chief Justice should be impeached, they said, "Let the nation decide."
The four senior judges of the Supreme Court on Friday
Jan 12,2018 mounted a virtual revolt against the chief justice, listing a litany of
problems that they said are afflicting the country's highest court and
warned they could destroy Indian democracy.
In a scathing criticism and unvarnished self-reflection of the Supreme Court, Chelameswar, who was accompanied by Justices Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph at the press conference, said they had met Chief Justice Dipak Misra this morning and "raised issues affecting the institution".
"Unless this institution is preserved, democracy will not survive in this country," Justice Chelameswar said, adding that it was "extremly painful" to hold the press conference in such a manner. The press conference was held at Chelameswar's residence.
He said all the four judges "failed to persuade CJI that certain things are not in order and therefore you should take remedial measures. Unfortunately our efforts failed.
"And all four of us are convinced that democracy is at stake and many things have happened in recent past," he said.
Asked what these issues were, he said they included the "allocation of cases by CJI". The remarks assume significance as the Supreme Court today took up for consideration the issue of alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya, who was hearing the sensitive Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case.
Justice Chelameswar said "we owe a responsibility to the institution and the nation. Our efforts have failed in convincing CJI to take steps to protect the institution."
"This is an extraordinary event in the history of any nation, more particularly this nation and an extraordinary event in the institution of judiciary ... It is with no pleasure that we are compelled to call this press conference.
But sometimes administration of the Supreme Court is not in order and many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months," he said.
The four judges, in their seven-page letter to the CJI that was released to the press, said, "It is too well settled in the jurisprudence of this country that the chief justice is only first amongst the equals -- nothing more or nothing less."
At the news conference, all the judges rubbished questions on whether they have broken ranks and said that they will start doing things which they do.
Justice Gogoi said "nobody is breaking the rank and it is discharge of debt to nation which we have done."
Gogoi, who would be succeeding Misra as CJI in October this year, said that, "it's a discharge of debt to the nation which we have done."
Asked whether they wanted the Chief Justice to be impeached, Justice Chelameswar said, "let the nation decide."
Short profiles of these 4 senior Justices
Justice Chelameshwar
Justice Jasti Chelameswar, who was elevated to the Supreme Court in 2011, has been involved in some high-profile judgements including the one which said that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was unconstitutional. He was also a member of the three-judge Bench which confirmed that the Aadhaar card is not compulsory and that officials who insist on them will be taken to task.
In October 2016, he was in the spotlight when he became the lone dissenting judge on the five-judge Constitution Bench led by Justice J.S. Khehar, which scrapped the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) law passed by Parliament. In the following month, he chose to opt out of the Supreme Court collegium meetings till the highest judiciary ushers in transparency.
Hailing from Krishna District of Andhra Pradesh, Justice Chelameshwar graduated in Law from Andhra University, Visakhapatnam in 1976, according to his official Supreme Court profile. He served as the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court and Chief Justice of Kerala before he was elevated as Judge, Supreme Court of India on October 10, 2011.
Justice Ranjan Gogoi
Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who hails from Assam, had been at the Gauhati High Court before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court on September 9, 2010. He was appointed as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2011. He was elevated as a Supreme Court Judge in April 2012. Justice Gogoi recused himself from hearing the plea filed by a lawyers’ group against the proposed elevation of Justice J.S. Khehar as Chief Justice of India in December 2016. Justice Gogoi also led the Bench which heard the sworn statement of former CBI officer in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
Justice Kurian Joseph
Born on November 30, 1953, Justice Joseph began his legal practice in 1979 in the High Court of Kerala. He was elevated as a Kerala High Court Judge on July 12, 2000, according to the Supreme Court website
Having served twice as the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerala, he was elevated as Supreme Court Judge March 8, 2013.
Justice Joseph is due to retire on November 30, 2018. "Judges do not depend on their Chief Justice of India for courage to serve without 'fear or favour', they derive it from the Constitution of India," Justice Kurian Joseph corrected a 92-year-old litigant in an open courtroom at the Supreme Court in 2014.
Justice Madan Lokur
Justice Madan Bhimrao Lokur hails from Delhi.
He practised in the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court as an advocate before being appointed as the Additional Solicitor-General of India in July 1998 and continued till he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court in February 1999. He was made a Permanent Judge of that High Court in July 1999 and was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court on June 24, 2010.
Following that, Justice Lokur was transferred as the Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, a post he held till he was recommended by the collegium of judges to be elevated to the Supreme Court in 2012. The recommendation followed Justice Dalveer Bhandari's resignation from the SC after he was elected as a judge in the International Court of Justice
The full text of the letter submitted by four Supreme Court Judges to the CJI
Dear Chief Justice,
It is with great anguish and concern that we have thought it proper to address this letter to you so as to highlight certain judicial orders passed by this Court which has adversely affected the overall functioning of the justice delivery system and the independence of the High Courts besides impacting the administrative functioning of the offices of the Hon. Chief Justice of India.
From the date of establishment of the three Chartered High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, certain traditions and conventions in the judicial administration have been well established. The traditions were embraced by this Court which came into existence almost essentially after the abovementioned Chartered High Courts. These traditions have their roots in the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and practice.
One of the well-settled principles is that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster with the privilege to determine the roster, necessity in multi-numbered courts for an orderly transaction of business and appropriate arrangements with respect to matters with which members/Bench of this Court (as the case may be) is required to deal with which case or class of cases is to be made. The convention of recognising the privilege of the Chief Justice to form the roster and assign cases to different members/Benches of the Court is a convention devised for a disciplined and efficient transaction of business of the Court, but not a recognition of any superior authority, legal or factual, of the Chief Justice over his colleagues. It is too well-settled in jurisprudence that the Chief Justice is only the first among equals — nothing more or nothing less.
In the matter of the determination of the roster, there are well-settled and time-honoured conventions guiding the Chief Justice, be the conventions dealing with the strength of the Bench which is required to deal with the particular case or the composition thereof.
A necessary corollary to the above mentioned principle is the members of any multi-numbered judicial body including this Court would not arrogate to themselves the authority to deal with and pronounce upon matters which ought to be heard by appropriate Benches, both composition-wise and strength-wise with due regard to the roster fixed.
Any departure from the above two rules would not only lead to unpleasant and undesirable consequences of creating doubt in the body politic about the integrity of the institution. Not to talk about the chaos that would result from such departure.
We are sorry to say that of late, the twin rules mentioned above have not been strictly adhered to. There have been instances where cases having far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution had been assigned by the Chief Justice of this Court selectively to the Benches "of their preferences" without any rational basis for such assignment. This must be guarded against at all costs.
We are not mentioning details early to avoid embarrassing the institution but note that such departures have already damaged the image of this institution to some extent.
In the above context, we deem it proper to address you presently with regard to the order dated 27.10.2017 in R.P. Luthra vs. Union of India, the effect that there should be no further delay in finalising the Memorandum of Procedure in the larger public interest. When the Memorandum of Procedure was a subject matter of a decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association And Anr. vs. Union of India [(2016) 5 SCC1] it is difficult to understand as to how any other Bench could have dealt with the matter.
The above apart, subsequent to the decision of the Constitution Bench, detailed discussions were held by the Collegium of five judges (including yourself) and the Memorandum of Procedure was finalised and sent by the then Honourable Chief Justice of India to the government in March 2017.
The Government of India has not responded to the communication and in view of this silence it must be taken that the Memorandum of Procedure as finalised by the Collegium has been accepted by the Government on the basis of the order of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (Supra). There was, therefore, no occasion for the Bench to make any observation with regard to the finalisation of the Memorandum of Procedure or that that issue cannot linger on for an indefinite period.
On July 4, 2017, a Bench of seven judges of this Court decided In Re, Hon'ble Shri Justice C.S. Karnan [(2017) 1 SCC 1]. In that decision (referred to in R.P. Luthra), two of us observed that there is a need to revisit the process of appointment of judges and to set up a mechanism for corrective measures other than impeachment. No observation was made by any of the seven learned judges with regard to the Memorandum of Procedure.
Any issue with regard to the Memorandum of Procedure should be discussed in the Chief Justices conference and by the full Court. Such a matter of grave importance, if at all required to be taken on the judicial side, should be dealt with by none other than a Constitution Bench.
The above development must be viewed with serious concern. The Honourable Chief Justice of India is duty bound to rectify the situation and take appropriate remedial measures after a full discussion with the other members of the Collegium and at a later stage, if required, with either Hon'ble Judges of this Court.
Once the issue arising from the order dated 27.10.2017 in R.P. Luthra vs. Union of India, mentioned above, is adequately addressed by you and if it becomes so necessary, we will apprise you specifically of the other judicial orders passed by this Court which would require to be similarly dealt with.
With kind regards,
[SIGNED]
Justice J. Chelameswar
Justice Ranjan Gogoi
Justice Madan B. Lokur
Justice Kurian Joseph
It is with great anguish and concern that we have thought it proper to address this letter to you so as to highlight certain judicial orders passed by this Court which has adversely affected the overall functioning of the justice delivery system and the independence of the High Courts besides impacting the administrative functioning of the offices of the Hon. Chief Justice of India.
From the date of establishment of the three Chartered High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, certain traditions and conventions in the judicial administration have been well established. The traditions were embraced by this Court which came into existence almost essentially after the abovementioned Chartered High Courts. These traditions have their roots in the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and practice.
One of the well-settled principles is that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster with the privilege to determine the roster, necessity in multi-numbered courts for an orderly transaction of business and appropriate arrangements with respect to matters with which members/Bench of this Court (as the case may be) is required to deal with which case or class of cases is to be made. The convention of recognising the privilege of the Chief Justice to form the roster and assign cases to different members/Benches of the Court is a convention devised for a disciplined and efficient transaction of business of the Court, but not a recognition of any superior authority, legal or factual, of the Chief Justice over his colleagues. It is too well-settled in jurisprudence that the Chief Justice is only the first among equals — nothing more or nothing less.
In the matter of the determination of the roster, there are well-settled and time-honoured conventions guiding the Chief Justice, be the conventions dealing with the strength of the Bench which is required to deal with the particular case or the composition thereof.
A necessary corollary to the above mentioned principle is the members of any multi-numbered judicial body including this Court would not arrogate to themselves the authority to deal with and pronounce upon matters which ought to be heard by appropriate Benches, both composition-wise and strength-wise with due regard to the roster fixed.
Any departure from the above two rules would not only lead to unpleasant and undesirable consequences of creating doubt in the body politic about the integrity of the institution. Not to talk about the chaos that would result from such departure.
We are sorry to say that of late, the twin rules mentioned above have not been strictly adhered to. There have been instances where cases having far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution had been assigned by the Chief Justice of this Court selectively to the Benches "of their preferences" without any rational basis for such assignment. This must be guarded against at all costs.
We are not mentioning details early to avoid embarrassing the institution but note that such departures have already damaged the image of this institution to some extent.
In the above context, we deem it proper to address you presently with regard to the order dated 27.10.2017 in R.P. Luthra vs. Union of India, the effect that there should be no further delay in finalising the Memorandum of Procedure in the larger public interest. When the Memorandum of Procedure was a subject matter of a decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association And Anr. vs. Union of India [(2016) 5 SCC1] it is difficult to understand as to how any other Bench could have dealt with the matter.
The above apart, subsequent to the decision of the Constitution Bench, detailed discussions were held by the Collegium of five judges (including yourself) and the Memorandum of Procedure was finalised and sent by the then Honourable Chief Justice of India to the government in March 2017.
The Government of India has not responded to the communication and in view of this silence it must be taken that the Memorandum of Procedure as finalised by the Collegium has been accepted by the Government on the basis of the order of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (Supra). There was, therefore, no occasion for the Bench to make any observation with regard to the finalisation of the Memorandum of Procedure or that that issue cannot linger on for an indefinite period.
On July 4, 2017, a Bench of seven judges of this Court decided In Re, Hon'ble Shri Justice C.S. Karnan [(2017) 1 SCC 1]. In that decision (referred to in R.P. Luthra), two of us observed that there is a need to revisit the process of appointment of judges and to set up a mechanism for corrective measures other than impeachment. No observation was made by any of the seven learned judges with regard to the Memorandum of Procedure.
Any issue with regard to the Memorandum of Procedure should be discussed in the Chief Justices conference and by the full Court. Such a matter of grave importance, if at all required to be taken on the judicial side, should be dealt with by none other than a Constitution Bench.
The above development must be viewed with serious concern. The Honourable Chief Justice of India is duty bound to rectify the situation and take appropriate remedial measures after a full discussion with the other members of the Collegium and at a later stage, if required, with either Hon'ble Judges of this Court.
Once the issue arising from the order dated 27.10.2017 in R.P. Luthra vs. Union of India, mentioned above, is adequately addressed by you and if it becomes so necessary, we will apprise you specifically of the other judicial orders passed by this Court which would require to be similarly dealt with.
With kind regards,
[SIGNED]
Justice J. Chelameswar
Justice Ranjan Gogoi
Justice Madan B. Lokur
Justice Kurian Joseph
No comments:
Post a Comment