LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Prakash Yedhula (Lawyer)     01 December 2009

Centre to decide on Dinakaran

Do you think that it is right on the part of Chief Justice of India (CJI) KG Balakrishnan to put the ball on the Union government to decide whether controversial Karnataka high court chief justice PD Dinakaran should be elevated to the Supreme Court (SC) or not?


The CJI is also believed to have told a delegation of lawyers that the Centre could overturn the collegium's recommendation, as it had done in the past.

If that is permissible, it means the CJI becomes subordinate to the whip of the political executive -- a situation that prevailed before 1993 when the power to appoint and transfer judges vested with the government.



 16 Replies

S. Bharath (Advocate and Arbitrator Formerly Civil Judge)     01 December 2009

Mr. Prakash, you are right. I too believe that the CJI could have played a proactive role which could be emulated by his successors. Still let us wait and see how he deals with the matter further, since as far as this matter is concerned, I do not think it is out of CJI's hands yet.

Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar (Nil)     01 December 2009

It is a bad sign for judiciary. The CJI should not adop such attitude.

H.D.Kumaravelu (Advocate)     01 December 2009


It would be an invasion into  the Judiciary

EPS.GIRI (advocate)     01 December 2009

right from the day 1 of his appointment  the CJI has not been doing well if the issue to be deceided is against the government.......since, 19.02.2009 incident in madras high court was not correctly handled by the CJI...subsequently when one of the judges of the madras high court was threatened by a union minister the CJI did not take any steps to save the judge, contra he tried to defend the minister even before the respective judge discloses the name of the minister....

.....a judge who is now no more, was twice rejected by the collegium.... but the government recomended the name again and he was posted as permanent judge ....... writ petition filed in  in this regard was dismissed by the sc...... that is the present situation..........   

adv. rajeev ( rajoo ) (practicing advocate)     02 December 2009

It is not good decision by the CJI, Mr. Dinakaran i shameless person, he could have resigned when there is an allegation against him.

What  CJI did if he has got some respect to the juidicial system he could have taken the decision, he says he will transfer dinakaran but will not remove him.

Now a days alomost all judges are corruptive because of introduction fof legal literacy programme.  I came to know that Lower Court Judges inspite of preseeure from the high court for speedy disposals are attending the LLC, legal aid programmes etc., even they have to attend the Jatras, bus stand, etc., for the LLC, what these so called intellectuals of juidiciary did, literally they brought the judicial system to the road..



N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     02 December 2009

As stated by S.Bharat, we are also watching with keen interest the way our CJI is acting in this matter. What other CJI have restored in the past must be continued without abdicating the role of CJI.

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     02 December 2009

 There is nothing to it. Passing the buck is the game in India. 

Reshma K (Advocate)     02 December 2009

I think we should foucs a lot electronic justice systems/ecourts. I think this is something which can change things. every aspect of the legal procedure should be technology enabled. Just like we have Nandan Nilekani appointed for Unique identity project, somebody of the status of Ratan Tata or Sunil Mittal or Narayan Murthy should be appointed as ECourts National project head. Somebody who believes in the enromous power of technology. Along with him somebody from the Judicial filed, a person of impeccable record, say Justicce MF Saldanha, etc should be appointed. This can change things.

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     03 December 2009

 SHOULD is all right. But, who WOULD?

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     03 December 2009

Is there a judge in India that fit the descripttion by Harold Laski in his tribute to Justice Holmes, describing a great Judge: " A great judge, must be a great man.He must have a full sense of the seamless web of life, a grasp of the endless tradition from which we cannot escape.he must be capable of stern logic, and yet to refuse to sacrifice to logic the hopes and fears and wants of men. He must be able to catch a glimpse of the ultimate in the immediate, of the Universal in the particular.he must be a statemen as well as as jurist, thinker as well as lawyer. What he is doing is to shape the catagories through which life must flow, and he must have a constant sense of greatness of his task.He must know the hearts of men, and yet ask to be judge from the conscience of their minds. He must have a constant sense of essential power, and yet to be capable of humanity in its exercise. he must be the servant of justice and not of its master, the conscience of the community and not of its dominant interest. He has to put aside the ambition which drives the politician to search for power and the thinker to the construction of abstract systems. No one must be more aware of the limitation of his material, none more hesitant about his personal conviction. the great judge is perhaps the rarest of human types, for in being superemely himself he must yet be supremely selfless. He has to strive towards results he cannot control through material he has not chosen.He has to be in the great world and yet aloof from it, to observe and examine without seeking to influence. A political systems which produces great judges can feel some real assurance about its future. A great judge it is said, seek to make the infinitely small illuminate the infinite great. These are stern andexacrting yests but they set out an ideal and a goal, distant and remote from the reach of most of us though they may be, still  for the attainment of which, even though partially and not in full measure, there has to be ceaseless striving and sustained effort. "Extract from the book Neither Roses Nor Thorns By justice H.R.Khanna. Page 86.

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     03 December 2009

 That is why he paid the price.

In the Habeas Corpus case during the Indian Emergency, four other judges went with the government view that even right to life stood abrogated during Emergency. Khanna's dissenting opinion, claiming that the Constitution did not permit right to life and liberty to be subject to executive decree, is widely regarded as a landmark in Indian democracy.

On January 3, 1977, he was superseded for the post of Chief Justice by Indira Gandhi, and he resigned from judicial service. He later served as Law Minister of India, and was nominated for President.

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     03 December 2009

If the present CJI or for that matters any Pusine judges of the Supreme Court can not uphold and protect the Constitution they should gracefully resigned and give way to others who can protect and uphold the pople and the Constituion. It is very unfortunate that the present CJI has invited upon himself as a controversial CJI.


the tussle between executive and judiciary is an old one. One just  hopes that sense of justice prevails. I feel that there is more to this issue than just land acquisition by dinakaran. Definitely Mr. Dinakaran has become inconveniently for some powerful person.


* convenient

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Popular Discussion

view more »

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query