Kshiteej Anokar (Advocate) 09 February 2011

Justice Ganguly's remarks

The Congress today remained non-committal on the fate of Union rural development minister Vilasrao Deshmukh, whose continuance in the government was questioned by a Supreme Court judge for influencing police from taking action against a Congress MLA in a money lending case when he was chief minister of Maharashtra.

Facing a volley of questions from reporters, party spokesperson Shakeel Ahmed suggested that moves for review of the judicial order against Deshmukh could be underway and the matter could go to a larger bench.

foykljko ns’keq[k ;kapsfo:/n dj.;kr vkysY;k U;k;ky;hu fVi.kh ckcr loksZP; U;k;ky;kr iquZfopkj ;kfpdk nk[ky dj.;kr vkysyh vlwu rh ;kfpdk loksZPp U;k;ky;kps yktZj csap eq[;fiBkdMs fu.kZ;kdjhrk tkbZy- R;keqGs R;kr foykljkokaph cktw iqUgk ekaM.;kr ;s.kkj vkgs- R;keqGs lnj ckc gh U;k;izfo"B vlY;kus R;kckcr vktjksth dks.krhgh izfrdzh; ns.ks mfpr Bj.kkj ukgh-

"We have also seen the report as to what the sitting judge of the Supreme Court has observed. We do not want to be in argument on this... Legal luminaries looking after the case will look into it," was Ahmed's refrain to questions including whether Deshmukh has moral right to continue.

vkEgkyk o`Rri=h; ckrE;kae/kwu ek- loksZP; U;k;ky;kps U;k;eqrhZaP;k Hkk"k.kkckcr ekfgrh feGkysyh vkgs- R;kckcr dk;nsrKkaph peq vH;kl djhr vkgs- R;kapsdMwu dk;nsf’kj ekxZn’kZu o lUekfu; U;k;kf/k’kkaP;k Hkk"k.kkph laiqZ.k izr feGkY;kuarj dk;nsf’kj ekxkZus izfrdzh;k ns.;kr ;sbZy- U;k;ky;kleksj vkeP;k orhus ekaM.;kr ;s.kkjh cktw lkoZtfudfjR;k vkt jksth m?kM dj.ks] mfpr Bj.kkj ukgh-

The minister, who had earlier faced severe criticism from the Supreme Court in the case, had two days back at a public function in Mumbai come under further attack from an apex court judge who questioned his continuance in the government.

"It is sad and shocking to see how the government allows and appreciates such ministers. Not only that, it also gives them a Cabinet post. It is not a dignified act and I would call it a shameless act," Justice AK Ganguly said at a seminar in Mumbai two days back.

Asked whether it was proper for the judge of the apex court to make such a comment at a public function, Ahmed steered clear of the issue saying he does not want to make any comment.

"Only a lawyer will be able to tell," remarked the Congress spokesman when asked whether Justice Ganguly's comment needed to be taken as an "individual comment" or "observation of Supreme Court."

laiq.kZ izdj.k v|ki U;k;izfo"B vlY;keqGs ek- U;k;kf/k’k egksn;kauh dsysyh fVi.kh gh R;kaps O;Drhxr er vkgs fd loksZP; U;k;ky;kps] g;kckcr dk;nsrKp ;ksX;fjR;k lakxq 'kdrhy-

He also refrained from reacting a query whether Justice Ganguly's carping comment on Deshmukh was part of judicial activism which has been growing in recent days.

In reply to another question, he said that there was no link between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's comment that the power of judicial review should never be used to erode the legitimate role assigned to other branches of the government and the comment by Justice Ganguly.

Ahmed too said that all branches needed to be aware of their responsibilities, indicating that there was unease in the party over the growing judicial activism.

When pointed out that Congress had demanded Karnataka chief minister BS Yeddyurrappa's resignation on the basis of adverse comments by Lokayukta, Ahmed said Yeddyurappa's case was different and a "clear case of corruption" whereas in Deshmukh's case there are observations of Supreme Court judge.

foykljko ns’keq[k gs jkT;lHkk lnL; Eg.kwu fuoMwu vkysys vkgsr rlsp 8 o"kZ eq[;ea=h 20 o"ksZ ea=h jkghysys ljiap inkiklwu eq[;ea=h o dsafnz; ea=h inki;Zar rs ikspysys vkgsr- brdsp uOgs rj R;kapslkscr izpaM tuk/kkj vkgs- R;kaph yksdfiz;rk o tuk/kkjkeqGs rs dsanzh; ea=hinkoj fu;qDr dj.;kr vkysys vkgsr- R;keqGs i{kJs"Bhauh tuk/kkjkpk vknj djhr R;kauk ea=hin nsowu i{kJs"Vhauh tuHkkouspk vknj dsyk vkgs- lkscrp loksZPp U;k;ky;kus ;kiqohZ fnysY;k fudkykr R;kauk dks.krsgh in /kkj.k dj.;kl fdaok fuoM.kwdhdjhrk vik= Bjfoysys ukgh- R;keqGs ek- foykljkoth ns’keq[k ;kauk ea=hin nsowu loksZPp U;k;ky;kps fudkykpkgh iq.kZ vknj dsysyk vkgs-

loksZP; U;k;ky;kus U;kbZd eqY; fu/kkZfjr dsys vkgs- R;ke/;s vls EgVys vkgs dh] U;k;kf/k’kkapk U;k;fu.kZ; gk Lo;aLi"V vlyk ikfgts R;kauh izlkjek/;ekauk eqyk[krh nsow u;s- R;keqGs ;k eq|koj vkEgh dk;nsrKkauk ekxZn’kZukph fouarh dsyh vkgs- R;kaps ekxZn’kZukuarjp R;kckcr dks.krhgh izfrdzh;k ns.ks mfpr gksbZy

RESTATEMENT OF VALUES OF JUDICIAL LIFE

(AS ADOPTED BY FULL BENCH OF SUPREME COURT ON 7TH MAY 1997)

9. A Judge is expected to let his judgments speak for themselves. He shall not give interview to the media.

Reply Follow

2 Replies

Ramakrishna Ponnekanti (ADVOCATE) 11 February 2011

not an appropriate forum.if the observations in course of deliberations of a case would definitely carry weight. by public comments in a meeting he kept open hos comments to criticism by tom and d**ky/

1 Like

Kshiteej Anokar (Advocate) 11 February 2011

On May 7, 1997, the Supreme Court of India in its Full Court adopted a Charter called the “Restatement of Values of Judicial Life” to serve as a guide to be observed by Judges, essential for independent, strong and respected judiciary, indispensable in the impartial administration of justice.

8. A Judge shall not enter into public debate or express his views in public on political matters or on matters that are pending or are likely to arise for judicial determination.

Former Chief Justice Hon’ble Y. K. Sabarwal

“ The office of a judge and the respect for his judgments is protected and gains prestige based on the way a judge conducts himself in his public and private life.”

“Avoiding impropriety and even a semblance of impropriety and being impartial and diligent in his conduct is a duty that a judge owes to the institution of the judiciary itself as he must be aware that the any slackness on his part could have an impact on the public perception of the integrity of the judiciary and in turn affect the independence of the judiciary. Although it goes without saying that a judge should maintain the highest standards of personal ethics, a judge should not let his standards of personal righteousness, (however high and commendable they may be) come in the way of practicing the required codes of ethical judicial conduct.”

Judges must be cautious of their role and responsibilities while engaging in public speech. Law is supposed to be founded upon morality and judges have to do with making law and its interpretation. Hence, the ethical obligation rests harder upon their shoulders. Judges must constantly be aware of their role and position in society and cannot be frivolous in the use of their words. It need not be stated that the words from a judge whether inside or out of the court room carry far more weightage than an average citizen. And while a judge may feel similar frustrations as an ordinary average citizen, they must weigh their freedoms against their ethical obligations as a judge who must not state his views in public over controversial issues that are sub judice or likely to be adjudicated upon by courts. In certain case it may also amount to prejudging issues and create needless controversy.