New LIVE Course: Learn the Practical Nuances of IPR Drafting by Adv. Gautam Matani. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Arup Kumar Gupta, Korba, Chattishgarh ((m)9893058429)     09 March 2010

thanks again.

Arup Kumar Gupta, Korba, Chattishgarh ((m)9893058429)     09 March 2010

but peoplewant, they should come under the act also.

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     09 March 2010

The Chief Justice of India, KG Balakrishnan, has set the stage for a long drawn battle within the judiciary just days ahead of the Supreme Court preparing to file an appeal to it. 
In an exclusive interview to TIMES NOW the CJI said that he will continue to oppose any move to bring the question of promotions and appointments in the higher judiciary under the ambit of the RTI Act. He also said that he opposes any move that could end up bringing correspondence between the CJI and other members of the higher judiciary under the RTI's ambit. 

Chief Justice of India, KG Balakrishnan said, "The discussions in the collegiums cannot be made public. The candidates are sitting Chief Justices. It is not a departmental promotion, where we grade the abilities of the judge. It is not a DCP committee meeting. SC judges are appointed from among the judges of the High Court mainly Chief Justices. In the discussion, sometimes comments are made against the judges, but we do not record the minutes. This is because it could adversely affect the image and integrity of the judge. The judge in question will continue as Chief Justice, we only consider if he is to be elevated or not. A comment made on weather the judge is desirable or not, cannot be publishes. I don't think that in any country, where this sort of an appointment is concerned, the comments on the judge are published". 

The CJI has set the tone even as the SC prepares to file an appeal to itself against a High Court order which stated that the CJIs office falls within the ambit of the RTI Act.


TRUTH HAS STARTED BITING THE POWERS THAT BE. We talk of USA. There the incumbent Judge is grilled from his personal life to his capacity, his background, mental set up, social consideration and everything under the sun in full glare of nationwide audience. What are we shy in India?

2 Like

Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Advocate (Advocacy)     09 March 2010

good job

Arup Kumar Gupta, Korba, Chattishgarh ((m)9893058429)     09 March 2010

hidden thinghs are the main source of corruption.

my opinion is, where -  rs one, utilised from the public fund, one person must be accountable for it and that person will liable to give information under RTI.

Arup Kumar Gupta, Korba, Chattishgarh ((m)9893058429)     09 March 2010

thanks to Anil sir.

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     10 March 2010

If only the incumbent judges before being appointed appear before a Parliamentary Committee for grilling and it is televised nationally.

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     14 March 2010

Tamasha unabated.


A forum of former judges, lawyers and social activists have voiced their protest against the decision of the Supreme Court to move an appeal against a Delhi high court judgment regarding disclosure of assets of Supreme Court judges under the Right to Information Act.

A meeting of former judges and other luminaries of the legal fraternity was held at the residence of justice TU Mehta, former chief justice of Himachal Pradesh high court, on Friday evening.

The members, who attended the meeting, later passed a resolution objecting the decision and also formed a three-member committee to decide the future course of action."We have decided to form a three-member committee and they will forward a resolution to the Bar Associations in the state to protest the decision of the apex court," said Girish Patel, senior lawyer and human rights activist.

The committee consists of justice (retired) RA Mehta, Girish Patel and Kanan Dhruv.

"We believe that this action of the Supreme Court will undermine the authority, independence, credibility, legitimacy and dignity of the highest court of the country," the resolution said.

The resolution further said that it would not be in the interest of the highest ideals of justice for the highest court to be a petitioner and litigant before itself in a case involving own actions. "It will shake the confidence of the people in the highest court," the resolution said.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Related Threads