Reforms in Judiciary
Judicial reforms are essential for an improved society and for guiding the political landscape in the proper direction. Anil Divan’s articel with caption, ‘Limited by Law’ (Jan 8, 2002), is timely one in this age of IT and openness. (The following text is an article ‘Need of the hour’ written by this author in response to Anil Divan’s article in Indian Express.)
It should be worth noting that only public servants inducted into Government service in India without conducting any screening test or examination are,
1) Judges, 2) Politicians (Law Makers) and 3) Governors
In fact, presently any (litigious) lawyer till yesterday can become an Honorable Judge the next day. When all Indian services are recruited through the Public Service Commission, appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts is made exclusively from lawyers. What stops our lawmakers from changing this anomaly?
As the laws of the judiciary and the system under which it operates serve lawyers, not the public, very little. It has been kept as it is for the past nearly 100 years. Moreover, the law of contempt and thereby accruing sanctity to the officials of the judiciary has kept the institution outside the purview of public scrutiny.
It is a truth that corruption prevails in lower courts with or without the complicity of the majistrates/judges. When the affected goes on appeals no further trial or re-examination of witnesses or re-submitssion of evidences are permitted under law. Only procedural elements are verified iin the appellant courts. This implies that a person with influence, power of money can manage the case permanently altered. Does this not suggest that many a case in India are steered to the disadvantage of the common man.
A person without any basic qualification in Engineering or Medicine or Science can become a Minister in the respective Ministries. Whereas Law Minister needs to be a Law graduate (traditionally).
Here lies the problem. How can one expect a Lawyer-Minister to think objectively and decide against professional needs of the lawyers and do some thing for the benefit of the common man? What stops our law makers to change this anomaly?
Moreover, law of contempt and thereby accruing sanctity to the offices of judiciary prevents public scrutiny.
It is a truth that corruption prevails in lower courts with or without the complicity of the Magistrates/Judges. When the affected goes on appeals no further trails or re-examination of witnesses or re-submission of evidences are permitted under law. Only procedural elements are verified in the Appellate Courts. This implies that a person with influence, power or money can ‘manage’ the case in trail courts and set the course of the case in his favour for ever. So that cases in India are steered to the disadvantages of common man?
Justice eludes
State of affairs would not be expected to change as long as the Judiciary lies as pocket borough of the elite and the Legislators. And justice eludes the common man unless corruption is weeded out and accountability is brought into the Institution of Judiciary.
( This letter was written by me , DVS Janardan Prasad on 17.01.2002 in The Indian Express daily ).
——–*——–
(Watch my Videos on River Saraswati, सरस्वती नदी, Birth place of Hanuman, Location of Brahmavarta, ब्रह्मावर्त and of course truth about Aryanism, आर्याजाती वाद in my YouTube Channel. )
Post retirement Posts for Judges
Similar to the roles of CAG and Election Commissioner, High Court and Supreme Court Judges should also be prohibited from accepting ‘POSTS’ post-retirement to ensure the Judiciary remains independent from the Executive in the Government of India based in New Delhi. Comptroller and Auditor General Mr. Vinod Rai deserves praise for his sincere distress about the situation concerning bullying by the political class. You understand the reasons and methods by which CAG found the courage to boldly criticize the Government and the Establishment
I believe that theprimary reason for this is that the CAG, similartothe Election Commissioner, is prohibited from assuming any Government position after retirement.
If High Court and Supreme Court Judges are prevented from holding ‘POSTS’ after retirement, the judgments from these courts would be more impartial and certainlyinvolve more criticisms of the Government
** This comment was written by me in Times of India in response to news item ‘People who have mandate to rule are typical ‘bullies’, CAG Vinod Rai says dt 16.2.13.
CJI is honest enough to acknowledge that the Government (Executive) and Judiciary are working together to assist one another. Evidently at the expense of Checks and Balances.
The Chief Justice asserts that the ultimate allocation of the budget is the authority of the executive. Nevertheless, after the allocation is completed, we all agree that the moment has arrived to genuinely focus on the matters of financial independence for the judiciary. How can the Judiciary achieve Autonomy.
The Government claims that the practice of appointing retired judges as heads of Commissions will be abolished. However, the “advantages” for the judges persist with an increase in retirement age by an additional 3 years? What is this all about? The government and the Judiciary lead individuals on a chase, while Justice remains out of reach for the average person. Since there would still be no oversight of the government’s capricious actions even after reforms are implemented.
The two letters above were penned by me in The Times of India as a reaction to a news piece, Judiciary, legislature need to coordinate: CJI dated. 5 April 2015, Times of India. Chief Justice of India H L Dattu on Sunday emphasized the need for collaboration and mutual correction between the judiciary and legislature, viewing them as “siblings”, if there is any deviation from the constitutional path.
dent on Checks and Balances
The head of the CBI states he is a member of the Government. Such a mindset undermines the Checks and Balances established in the Constitution of India. Every MP and MLA in India believes they are members of the Government, but in reality, they are not. Many believe the Judiciary belongs to the Government, but it isn’t technically so. Checks and Balances in Indian Polity have been weakened due to this ‘part of the Government syndrome’.
- Agree (5)Disagree (0)Recommend (4)Offensive
- SC’s caged parrot remark is correct: CBI chief Ranjit Sinha“, dt 9.5.13. CBI chief Ranjit Sinha accepted the SC’s observation that the country’s premier investigating agency was a “caged parrot” that “speaks in its master’s voice”.
I believe India is governed from New Delhi as though it were an absolute monarchy. Multiple institutions of Indian democracy gradually but inevitably merged into one body under the firm control of the ruling political party in New Delhi. Therefore, CBI does not have to be an exception. Coalgate: Supreme Court offers CBI three alternatives. 8.5.13. The Supreme Court stated that the CBI must learn to resist all influences and pressures from the government and its officials. Economic Times.
We believe that the Supreme Court is supreme. But it is not independent. In legal parlance Government and the Judiciary are not independent entities but interdependently independent. That is why we in India get few Judgments from the Supreme Court of High Courts that run against Governments. In this context, it may be noted that SC and HC judges not only are appointed by the Center but also are ‘promoted’ after their retirement by the Government.
It is accurate that the Summer break for Courts is a remnant of British history. It is known by everyone. However, K Shyam Sundar, the lawyer who submitted the PIL, deserves gratitude and praise for bringing the matter directly to the Court.
(I am happy to tell you that I have another website named: Hindu Religion its cultural heritage which have articles on Sanatana Dharma, Hindu culture, Veda Suktas, Devi devata stuti path, Vedas, etc. Make a visit to this website also and read the articles and express your opinion.)