cpc

credibility of judiciary of india

Working Chairperson Democratic Rights Forum (DRF) [Foundation for Social Justice and Constitutional Awareness for Trial of Public Service] - Founder President : Ram Samudre

 

 

CREDIBILITY OF JUDICIARY OF INDIA

The RTI Act is implemented to whatever strength it may not be possible if the

RTI ACT would Have been given

in the hands of

HON’BLE JUDICIARY

and

IF the JUDICIARY would have been allowed

to say FINAL WORD in Appeals

and in that case

the "REQUISITE INFORMATION"

would become a forbidden fruit

which 

"WOULD BE GIVEN ON NEXT DATE"

AND

"THE NEXT DATE WOULD NEVER COME.

The history of democratic india

Will never forget

And

Will never forgive

That

The judiciary was against

to honour

the right to information of people of india

and

was against to implement

the Right to information act

in judiciary

as their claim was that

the judicial people

are

above the

democratic people of india

as the god is above all

so

thank god

for

“the devil for democracy is defeated” 

One day The future will become the present

and will ask that

Who are they ???

Who took over the charge

Of judiciary

And

How they hold it ???

And

What they did ?????

Shortly

That day is coming !!!

 

*****


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 
C E O

date par date, judiciary in India has become a mockery....and the judges have a simple way to prolong the case.."in the interest of justice"... a next date couple of months ahead. Isn't that a denial of Justice??? Even the Tribiunals and forums carved out to give faster Justice have of late gone beyond there time bound frame, National Consumer Forum has a pendency of over 3 years against a time frame of 3 months. Debt recovery tribunals were to complete the proceedings in 6 months, they are not able to decide cases in even 12 years, thats just an example.... of late the Law Minister told in Parliament that Stay granted in different cases need to be mintored by the Higher Courts every 6 months, will this ever happen??

 
Reply   
 


ADVISOR

Date Par Date is not a big problem.It only depends on litigants.If any one litigant is particular no judge would linger on the matter.

The actual point to keep in mind is delivery of justice and it is being defeated by avoiding the actual facts or by quoting only suitable case laws i.e. citations.In the jungle of citations the fact and truth are so discussed that it becomes impossible to get the justice.

Why it is so that only Politicians & Criminals express faith in judiciary?

In my opinion for delivery of justice:

CITATIONS SHOULD BE AVOIDED-Truth is LOST in the jungle of CITATIONS

Judges should be appointed through INDIAN JUDICIAL SERVICE- Govt. and Judiciary both are avoiding

All the facts should be numbered and discussed

Litigants should be educated to raise the facts wrongly mentioned/Un noticed in trial court judgement in first appellate court as it is the final court as regards facts.Litigant can ask to list all the facts and the judge is

dutybound to give his finding on the issue.

 
Reply   
 
ADVISOR

 

 

   
M J Antony: Cherry-picking case law
Whether retrospective amendments can stand judicial scrutiny or not is a moot question
M J Antony / Mar 28, 2012, 00:55 IST
When there is a chicken-or-egg legal question, jurists can cite case law for both sides. Precedents and counsel who quote them are like the warrior races of old that are found on both sides of the battle, with the invaders as well as the defending satraps
The conundrum raised by the Union Budget, in which some 17 retroactive amendments have been introduced, is one such situation. Can Parliament pass a law to undo the impact of a Supreme Court judgment? Ordinarily, the government ignores an irksome verdict or grins widely and bears it. But when pressure and prestige become insurmountable, the government takes the desperate course of changing the goalposts.
A survey of Supreme Court case law on this issue will yield a rich harvest of judgments that apparently cancel each other. There are enough passages that could be read out to judges by the arguing counsel, if only they take care to skip, or make themselves inaudible, at some inconvenient passages that go against what they argue.
The earliest Constitution Bench judgment that is often quoted is Madan Mohan Pathak vs Union of India (1978). When the Calcutta High Court directed LIC to pay cash bonus to its lower staff, the government passed an amendment to the LIC Act to sidestep the order. A seven-judge Bench struck it down. It said that though the “aims and objectives” of the amending Act did not confess its motivation, the legislation could not usurp the role of the judiciary. Citizens’ right could not be taken away indirectly, quoting another leading case, Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain.
This is the refrain in several later judgments. Since the rulers cannot stomach the power of the judiciary, the point has been asserted in a catena of decisions. For instance, in P Sambamurthy vs State of AP, the court said, “If the exercise of the power of judicial review can be set at naught by the government overriding the decision given against it, it would sound the death knell of rule of law.”
In the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal judgment of 1993, the court dealt with a law that gave primacy to the Karnataka government decision over that of the judicial direction. Striking down the law, the Supreme Court emphasised that “such an act of the legislature amounts to exercising the judicial power of the state and to functioning as an appellate court.”
Just a few more decisions on this line: in PUCL vs Union of India, the court declared that the voter has a right to know the antecedents of candidates. Politicians hastened to pass an ordinance to nullify the ruling. The court struck down the ordinance. The infamous “single directive” to protect top babus also met with a similar fate in Vineet Narain vs Union of India. The latest decision was about the Tamil Nadu text books that lionised the aged Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, or DMK, supremo. The amendment was struck down last August (State of TN vs K Shyam Sunder.)
Now, guess which cases would the other side quote? A cursory search on the online law library brings out the following. In the case, Bhaktawar Trust vs M D Narayan, the court allowed the Karnataka government to overcome its difficult situation. A builder raised an eight-story building against the regulations. A neighbour complained. The high court ordered its demolition. The government passed a law bending the rules. When it was challenged, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition stating that “the supposedly nebulous intention of the legislature to defeat the judicial process is outside the bounds of our consideration. The intention of the legislature in passing a particular statute is beyond the pale of judicial review”.
In the case, Vijay Mills vs State of Gujarat (1993), the Supreme Court stated that it was open to a legislature to change the very basis of a provision retrospectively and to validate the state actions on the changed basis. In another case, Shri Prithvi Cottom Mills vs Broach Municipality (1970), the court explained that the legality of a validating law depended on whether, in making the validation, it removed the defect the court had found in the existing law.
In the judgment, Govt of AP vs HMT (1975), the Supreme Court approved the amendment since it removed the basis of the decision rendered by the high court “so that the decision could not have been given in the altered circumstances”.
All these decisions open a rich field for cherry-picking case law to their taste. In any case, most counsel use citations, like inebriated people use lamp posts to get support rather than receiving light. As Richard Nixon said in the political context, the jawbone is as powerful a weapon as it was in the biblical days when David fought the Philistines with it.
 
Reply   
 
ADVISOR

Now that Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and the UPA government have finally decided to hold the conference of chief ministers and chief justices of high courts this weekend, there is hope that some long-pending issues in the country's judicial and justice delivery system will be resolved. Originally meant to be an annual affair, the conference was last held in August 2009. Rather than discussing the need for judicial reforms, which has been brought up so many times that one has lost count, the higher judiciary and the government would do well to use this year's conference to take stock of what has been achieved since the last conference.
The law ministry is suggesting that the issue of an All India Judicial Service would be discussed at this meeting. But wasn't it discussed almost four years ago too? And what about making appointments to higher judiciary more transparent? Successive law ministers, including the current one, have announced plans to replace the collegium system with a more transparent one. But since this requires a constitutional amendment, the chances of this happening any time soon are remote, what with the government and opposition divided on the composition of the proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission.

Both the judiciary and the government repeatedly talk of increasing the strength of the subordinate judiciary. CJI Kabir is reportedly aiming at increasing the number of judges manning subordinate courts from the current 18,871 to 30,000-plus in the next five years. Earlier this year, Union Law Minister Ashwani Kumar had also asked all state governments to increase the strength of the subordinate judiciary. But what about first filling all vacant posts, both in the high courts and the lower courts? At last count, out of the sanctioned strength of 906 high court judges, a whopping 292 posts were vacant, that is, over 30 per cent. The picture is no different when it comes to lower courts. According to data for December 31, 2010, out of the sanctioned 17,151 posts in states and Union Territories, 3,170 were vacant.

At the last conference, the government and judiciary had also agreed to set up more morning/evening courts and also to reduce the states' financial burden to set up more gram nyayalayas. As of December 17, 2012, 168 gram nyayalayas were notified, while only 151 were operationalised. Five thousand gram nyayalayas had been planned in the 2008 Gram Nyayalayas Act.

About a year ago, the Supreme Court cleared the National Court Management System (NCMS), aimed at setting up a real-time system to keep a check on pendency and make the judicial system free of cases more than five years old, which would mean 26 per cent of all pending cases. Here is what the introduction to the action plan for the NCMS said: "It is manifest that many of the important recommendations made by the Law Commissions (on judicial reforms), from time to time, have not even been properly discussed, leave aside their implementation by the Government." The Supreme Court also acknowledged that many recommendations of the Law Commissions do not need to pass through legislative or executive channels and can be implemented straightaway by the judiciary. It also noted the urgent need to shorten the average life cycle of all cases, "not only time spent within each court, but also total time in the judicial system as a whole". It spoke of bringing the average down to "no more than about one year in each court". None of these issues has been dealt with effectively.

Jurists have said that courts should not grant adjournments at the drop of a hat, on flimsy excuses such as the lawyer who was supposed to appear in the matter had too much work on his hands. But this suggestion has not been taken seriously. Despite the infusion of hundreds of crores, the use of technology to track pendency remains minimal. Last year, the CJI had cleared the setting up of a National Framework of Court Excellence (NFCE), designed to put in place "measurable performance standards for Indian courts" by "addressing issues of quality, responsiveness and timeliness". There has been little progress on this front.

While it is a fact that India has one of the lowest judge-to-population ratios in the world, this statistic can no longer be an argument for the growing pendency of cases and the failure of our judicial system to deliver timely justice.

Also, while pitching for fast-track courts for certain kinds of offences, our policy-makers and judges should keep in mind what former CJI J S Verma has said on the subject: "Why fast-track courts for some offences? Shouldn't all litigants be assured fast-track decisions by the courts?"


maneesh.chhibber@expressindia.com
 

 
Reply   
 
ADVISOR

Law minister Ashwani Kumar on Sunday said the government's plan to introduce an All-India Judicial Service (IJS) for recruitment of judges for subordinate courts had the support of most states.

In fact, the question was first put to Chief Justice Altamas Kabir who said some states had reservations on the framework of the IJS. "Some states feel it can't be implemented... no final decision has been taken on this," he said referring to the discussion on the issue earlier in the day during the chief ministers and chief justices conference. The CJI said it was still a concept which needed further discussion.

At this point, the law minister interrupted the CJI and said there was "wide ranging support for the all-India Judicial Service". He, however, said some fine tuning needed to be done. "In principle, there is wide ranging consensus on the issue," Kumar said referring to the support he had received on the IJS matter from the CMs.

The law minister and the CJI were jointly addressing a press conference after a day-long meeting with CMs of at least 12 states and chief justices of 24 high courts and judges of the apex court at Vigyan Bhawan in the Capital. Law secretaries of most states were in attendance.

For fast tracking recruitment of judges for subordinate courts, the government is working with the states and the higher judiciary to push through the All-India Judicial Service on the lines of IAS and IPS to fill up largescale vacancies. An apex court committee has set a target of recruiting more than 18,000 judges in the next five years taking the total strength of the judiciary to 37,000.

On appointments to the higher judiciary Justice Kabir defended the collegium system saying they are made after "intense deliberations". He was responding to a question on the need to replace the present collegium system. "I don't know what this criticism is about, the way judges are being appointed. Great deal of deliberation goes into the choice of the name of the judge," he said.

The CJI also stressed on the need for dialogue between the executive and the judiciary for a harmonious relationship. He concurred with the view that judges should not make unnecessary comments against other constitutional authorities in open court. "There is no need to make unnecessary observations in open court," he said.

Justice Kabir referred to low conviction rates in courts and blamed shoddy investigation for the state of affairs. He said a criminal trial was dependent on proper investigation. Issues related to witness protection and amenities to be provided to witnesses were discussed at the meeting earlier in the day, he added.

Sunday's conclave agreed on setting up of a sub-committee nominated by the CJI on securing protection against incarceration. Several cases of petty crimes are keeping people as undertrial prisoners for long periods of time depriving them of their liberty.
 

 
Reply   
 

May 6, 2013, 05.37 AM IST



JAIPUR: A day after interrogating former district judge of Ajmer, Ajay Kumar Sharda, in connection with clerk recruitment scam, the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) has now started verifying what Hemraj had revealed about his contacts with the judge during police remand. In its FIR, ACB has alleged that Hemraj had direct links with the judge and the advocate had spoken several times with him at his residence as well as on telephone. Hemraj's police remand is to end on Monday.

According to sources, the ACB went to the extent of interrogating the judge only because the agency has concrete evidence related to the roles of the four accused, three of whom have been arrested, while one is absconding.

"What came out of the interrogation is not being disclosed. The interrogation has helped the ACB verify some facts which were revealed during questioning of the accused advocate Hemraj Kanawat," said a senior ACB officer.

The bureau had on April 23 carried out raids in Ajmer and busted the court clerk recruitment racket. At the time of the raids, the court administration was preparing to release the final result of the recruitment. The agency arrested Rajesh, nazir of Nasirabad court; Hitesh, a court clerk, Hemraj, an advocate of Kekri, and Adbul, a middleman of Hemraj, while another advocate of Ajmer Bhagwan Singh fled from the scene.

The ACB filed FIR in this matter in the court stating that Hemraj revealed he had direct contact with judge Sharda. The high court administration on the same day shifted judge Sharda from Ajmer and the next day deputed him as a judge of family court of Banswara district.

Sources said the agency is collecting evidence concerning Hemraj's contacts with the judge. Officials refused to share more details of the interrogation; however, hinted that the judge might be called for questioning in future too.

 

source URL;http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/Judges-interrogation-to-help-verify-revelations-made-by-advocate-ACB/articleshow/19905594.cms

 
Reply   
 
ADVISOR

'Scientific development major challenge before judiciary'
Hindustan Times
“India has become a haven for white collar criminals, who are advocated
by “giant” lawyers. If quality justice cannot be ensured to people, it
is better to abolish the judicial system,” said justice BS Chauhan of theSupreme Court

on Friday. He stated ...
<http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/HimachalPradesh/Scientific-development-major-challenge-before-judiciary/Article1-1068948.aspx>

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

IPC Grand Course     |    x