Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
But the more heed judges are expected to pay to the social
consequences of their decisions, the harder it is for them to lay
aside their personal preferences or the interests of their friends and
allies. This explains why the verdict of the courts in Ghana can, in
some cases, be suitably and comfortably classified as a political
memoir.
At best, Judges can only be presumed to be men who are squarely fit
to administer justice and settle the differences and cases that roil
our lives. This is a mere presumption. No human judge is perfect or
infallible. Being manned by men who are essentially amenable to
the common and ordinary frailties of humans, the judiciary cannot
be seen as or claim to be beyond human checks and controls. The
humans who fill the seemingly uncontrolled judiciary are the same
as those who fill other state institutions which are carefully
controlled, limited and checked against possible excesses and
abuses.
Indeed the law is said to lie in their bosom. The world owes it to
Justice Oliver W. Holmes that: 'The prophecies of what the courts will
do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the
law.'This observation has received a well-nigh unanimous
acceptation by legal scholars, and if it is correct, then the judiciary
ought to be reasonably checked in order to ensure that the reason
for its existence may not be prejudiced and jeopardized.
Montesquieu put it most strongly: 'Of the three powers above-
mentioned, the judiciary is in some measure next to nothing.'
The life tenure of judges has been criticised by many scolars and
ordinary Ghanaians. But I have always asked myself, is there any
better arrangement? Must judges have a fixed term of office? If yes,
how long?
Every judge votes, signifying that judges are not politically neutral
persons as we presume them to be. We can, at best, hope that
judges will value the public confidence reposed in them to do justice
and uphold fidelity of law. It is sad and regrettable that judges make
their political stance so plainly conspicuous that their choice of
words in their judgment merely betrays them as the exalted alter
egos of the government that appointed them.
In fact, the court has become a tool for effecting witch-hunting and
punishing dissenting members of the polity. What accounts for this
major problem in our national life? Is the problem the mode of
appointment of judges? Is the problem merely one of personal
failings of the judges? Are there better systems of government that
fosters independence of the judiciary while making the courts as
responsible and accountable as any other state organ? What do you
suggest we do?
Objections to the court: How Made?
The judiciary of Ghana seems an institution of overwhelming
monstrosity and mystery. Upon hearing of the court, the citizens are
immediately put in a state of utter fright. When the courts sit, they
appear very unfriendly and distant. The courts are free to pass any
verdict at all without any fear of control or objection from anyone.
Lawyers more frequently raise objections to their fellow lawyers to
signify their dissensions. However, it is contemptuous for a lawyer to
raise abjection to a proposition made by a judge, not even when
such objection is prefaced by the soothing phrase, 'with all due
respect'. All that the law and practice permit a lawyer to do is to bow
to the judge and say, 'I am grateful, my Lord', 'As the Court pleases',
'Most grateful' and suchlike phrases.
Who can question the court for what it does - parliament, the
executive, the citizenry or who? Is the Supreme Court of Ghana too
supreme for a good? If it is, what ought we to do?
The courts have the power to validate the invalid and invalidate the
valid. What can't the Supreme Court of Ghana do under the sun?
Perhaps, what the Supreme Court cannot do is to order that a man
be changed into a woman. The Supreme Court has the power not
only to enforce the law, but to legislate at will. In fact, the life of the
ordinary Ghanaian depends on the intelligence of the judiciary. The
judiciary encourages and discourages actions of the masses.
We have instances where the Supreme Court has held that the Court
of Appeal was wrong in its decisions. But is the Supreme Court itself
always correct in its opinions.
In Korblah II Alias Tetteh And Another v. Odartei III [1980] GLR 932-
945 the Court of Appeal in allowing an appeal from a High Court
stated that 'the learned judge clearly erred'. Republic v. Kumasi
Traditional Council; Ex Parte Nana Kofi Dei [1973] 2 GLR 73 - 90the
Court of Appeal held that, 'Consequently, the High Court had erred
in holding otherwise'.
I hope it may not surprise anyone to hear that the Supreme Court
also, even by majority, errs in its decisions. In the famous case of
Tsatsu Tsikata v. Attorney-General [26/06/2002] CIVIL MOTION NO.
11/2002 the Supreme Court, in overturning an earlier majority
decision in a review application held thus: 'The majority judgment
omitted to consider and examine relevant constitutional provisions
to which I have made reference and consequently erred in law in the
conclusions it reached.' It was also observed that, 'The majority
erred when they came to a contrary conclusion'.
Ironically the Higher Judiciary in India has powers of control over every organ under the
Constitution but there exists no effective method of disciplining its own members." [1]
The Preamble to our Constitution declares India is a Democratic State. This broadly means
that we have a government by the people, of the people and for the people. It follows from this
principle that, the Government should be accountable for all its acts or omissions to those for
whom it exists.
The third branch of the government- the judiciary. The power that Judiciary enjoys, the role that
it plays in our lives and the onerous task that it performs is beyond comprehension. Infact, it
would be no exaggeration to say that of the three branches of the Government, Judiciary is
perhaps of the greatest significance to the people, it being closest to them in the sense that
anybody (even an ordinary citizen) can approach the Judiciary when he has any grievance.
Judicial Accountability can be defined as the costs that a judge expects to incur in case his/her
behavior and/or his/her decisions deviate too much from a generally recognized standard, in
this case referring to the letter of the law.
Judicial independence was not intended to be a shield from public scrutiny. Judicial
independence is not only a necessary condition for the impartiality of judges, it can also
endanger it. Higher judiciary in our country is the only institution that is virtually not accountable
and at the same time enjoys exceptional constitutional protection and formidable weaponry
such as contempt of court to silence the critics. [2] Accountability of the judiciary in respect of
its judicial functions and orders is safeguarded by provisions for appeal, reversion and review of
orders. But there is no mechanism for accountability for serious judicial misconduct, for
disciplining errant judges. [3]
By Apurv Mishra
After the Pandavas win the war at Kurukshetra, Bhishma teaches the art of governance to
Yudhishthira, the victorious king. One of the first lessons that he learns is the importance of
swift and proportional punishment in ensuring civilised behaviour of citizens and maintaining
the moral equilibrium in society:
Listen scion of Kuru, to what the rod of punishment is and how it is judicially prescribed: for the
rod of punishment is the one thing in this world upon which everything depends... if the rod of
punishment did not exist in this world, beings would be nasty and brutish to each other... it puts
this world into a stable order quickly, king
There has always been a struggle for supremacy between the executive and judiciary in India.
When the executive was powerful (think Indira Gandhi), judiciarys role was severely curtailed.
However, in the present era of coalition governments and PILs, the judiciary has taken a more
active role in shaping public policy. But this increasing power of judiciary has not been matched
by a corresponding increase in institutional mechanisms to check its misuse.
From the Ghaziabad Provident Fund scam to serious charges of misappropriation against the
close relatives of former Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan and allegations of sexual
misconduct against a former Supreme Court judge, instances of financial and moral corruption
in our judiciary have become embarrassingly frequent over the years. Exasperated over the
systemic rot in Allahabad High Court, the largest High Court in India with 160 judges, the
Supreme Court was moved to paraphrase Shakespeares Hamlet and remark that something
is wrong in the Allahabad High Court.
When questioned about this delicate issue, the present CJI prosaically remarked, The judiciary
is not untouched by corruption. As guardians of the constitution, our judges have admirably
protected democratic traditions in our country; but the question remains, who will guard the
guards?
Functioning democracies have their internal self-correcting mechanisms through which the
executive and legislature are kept in check by the opposition in the parliament, legislations like
RTI and periodic elections. The judiciary has been kept outside the purview of the court of
public opinion to ensure its credibility as an impartial arbiter of disputes. But this insulation has
created a culture of complacence and inefficiency because the rod of punishment is absent.
For example, even an FIR against a judge can only be registered after the permission of the
CJI. This had tragic consequences in the provident fund scam where then-CJI Balakrishnan did
not give permission to file an FIR against accused judges for almost two years, by which time
the prime accused, Ashotosh Asthana, died in mysterious circumstances. Justice Sen was held
guilty of misappropriating funds before he became a judge, when he was an ordinary citizen.
However, once he was appointed a judge, there was no other way to penalise him except
through impeachment- a process so inefficient that not a single judge has been impeached in
the last 67 years. In the case of Nirmal Yadav (who has the ignonimity of being the first judge to
be chargesheeted while still in office), even though a three-judge panel recommended her
prosecution, then-CJI Balakrishnan simply transferred her to a different High Court.
The Bill is a paradigm shift from the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 because it allows ordinary
citizens to file complaints against judges, mandates the disclosure of assets by judges and their
close relatives and allows for punishments other than the arduous process of impeachment.
The most important development in the Bill is the definition of what constitutes misbehaviour
by a judge because the constitution provides for the removal of a judge only in cases of proven
misbehaviour. It has done so by giving statutory recognition to judicial standards that were
adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997.
The Oversight Committee can issue advisory or warning or recommend minor punishment if the
case does not warrant a removal. For serious charges, the Oversight Committee would request
the judge to resign. Only a judge as obtuse and insolent as A Raja would continue beyond this
point; in which case the Oversight Committee would recommend his removal to the President.
The Oversight Committee, which is the nodal institution to investigate complaints, includes
three senior judges, the Attorney General and an eminent person appointed by the President. It
is a welcome change from the current in-house system of grievance redressal in which judges
are very reluctant to take strict action against their fellow brother judges, a tendency that Fali
Nariman has equated with trade unionism. The Bill also gives the Scrutiny Panel and the
Investigation Committee powers of a civil court which means that they have the right to
summon witnesses and place documents on record.
The Bill should have been passed in the Rajya Sabha because it was not a contentious political
issue and all major parties agreed with its provisions after the government had the good sense
to remove a controversial clause that gagged judges. Now that the session is over, lets hope
that (for once) the ordinance-making power is put to good use and the country is put into a
stable order quickly. Corruption is judiciary has a perverse multiplier effect on the national well-
being because it shields all other forms of corruption by removing the rod of punishment. A
huge backlog of cases and scarcity of judges at all levels further incentivises corruption. The
heavy workload of High Court judges leaves them little time to supervise the functioning of
lower courts.
Transparency Internationals Global Corruption Barometer 2013 reported that 45 percent of
surveyed households in India considered judiciary to be corrupt or extremely corrupt and 36
percent of households who had contact with the judiciary in 2012 reported to have paid a bribe.
Something as simple as enforcing a commercial contract is a nightmare for companies. It
requires them to undergo an average of 46 administrative procedures, takes an average of
1420 days and costs more than 39 percent of the actual claim. If the public starts losing faith in
the judicial process, they resort to extra-judicial means of grievance redressal. This explains the
rise of khap panchayats in Haryana and kangaroo courts like the one West Bengal which
ordered the gruesome gang rape of a woman recently. In the words of Justice Brandeis, if we
want the public to respect law, we must first make law respectable.
Opponents of the Bill raise important issues about the bill compromising judicial independence.
For example, the Attorney General, who is part of the Oversight Committee, is the senior most
law officer of the Union government and may regularly appear in the court of judges against
whom complaints may be filed. The argument is that this may compromise judicial
independence. They have also raised concerns about the possibility that frivolous complaints
may be filed by the losing side in a dispute.
These opponents are free to suggest alternate measures to keep a check on judiciary. We
could have a system of periodic referendum on continuance of judges, as is the case in USA
and Japan. But the judiciary needs to understand that there is a limit to what we will do to
protect judicial independence and the limit is well on this side of judicial accountability.
As of June 2013, there were 276 vacancies out of a total sanctioned strength of 904
permanent and additional judges in all the High Courts of India. With almost a third of
the vacancies to be filled, most States are witnessing major canvassing on caste,
community, political and other considerations for appointment as judges. As
allegations and counter-allegations over the appointment of favourites fly thick and
fast, the debate over the process of judicial appointments is once again heating up.
Collegium experiment
The Emergency and the post-Emergency era witnessed attempts by the executive to
muzzle the judiciary. It was to check this erosion of independence of the judiciary that
the Collegium system was evolved, by which the senior-most judges of the High
Court and the Supreme Court selected judges with the executive merely being
consulted. But 20 years after the Collegium experiment, the appointment of judges by
the judges is being perceived as appointments for the judges. There is growing
evidence that the current system of judicial appointments has resulted in incompetent,
inefficient, ethically compromised individuals being appointed as judges.
In May 2013, over 1,000 lawyers of the Punjab and Haryana High Court protesting the
recommendation of seven names by the High Court Collegium for appointment as
judges wrote: The independence and integrity of the judiciary has been put at stake
by the Collegium while recommending the names of advocates for elevation as judges
... the decisions of the Collegium seem to have been based on considerations other
than merit and integrity of the candidate. They added, it has now become a matter of
practice and convenience to recommend advocates who are the sons, daughters,
relatives and juniors of former judges and Chief Justices. Nepotism and favouritism is
writ large. We all need to rise to the occasion and oppose such recommendation.
In June 2013, the Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHAA) gave a
representation to the Chief Justice of the High Court regarding a list of 15 names
forwarded by the Collegium, pointing out, the proposed list of persons recommended
for elevation to the high constitutional office falls far short of the standards set out in
the various judgments of the Supreme Court. It appears that the names have been
proposed on extraneous criteria such as caste, religion, office affiliations, political
considerations and even personal interests and quid pro quo. We at the Bar are
deeply distressed, concerned and even alarmed at the partisan manner in which the
selection is made. It exhibits a total indifference to the future of the Judiciary as an
institution where institutional interests have been sacrificed at the altar of personal
pursuits.
Erosion of respect
For many years, Bar Associations throughout India have been continuously
demanding transparency and openness in the appointment process. Today the
greatest concern is the secrecy shrouding the appointments.
The real issue is not who appoints judges but how they are appointed. Irrespective of
whether it is the executive, the judiciary or a Judicial Commission that appoints
judges, as long as the process is opaque and appointments are made on personal
considerations, we will have variations of the same problem of favouritism, nepotism
and appointments on criteria other than merit and capability. The crucial need ,
therefore, is to evolve objective criteria to assess a candidate and make appointments
on the basis of assessments against such stated criteria. We may usefully refer to the
system adopted by the Judicial Appointments Commission in the United Kingdom to
assess candidates.
3. An ability to understand and deal fairly: This includes (a) the ability to treat everyone
with respect and sensitivity whatever their background and (b) willingness to listen
with patience and courtesy.
4. Authority and communication skills: The nominated person is expected to have (a)
the ability to explain the procedure and any decisions reached clearly and succinctly
to all those involved with the further (b) ability to inspire respect and confidence and
(c) maintain authority when challenged.
5. Efficiency: The ability to work at speed and under pressure and the ability to
organise time effectively and produce clear reasoned judgments expeditiously.
The U.K. system made assessment in respect of all criteria evidence-based. Selection
will be rejected if there is not enough evidence that the person is suitable for the office
concerned, or there is evidence that the person is not the best candidate on merit.
The public senate hearings for appointments of judges to superior courts in the U.S.
are another example of transparency. We may not find the U.S. system implementable
as it is; but nothing prevents us from incorporating the key principles of transparency,
accountability and citizen participation underlying the U.S. system for selection of
judges.
Transparency will inspire confidence in people. Appointment of judges being in the
public domain should be open and visible. Considering the views of the Bar is a
healthy process of consultation as it is privy to a lot more information than the general
public.
Criticism of biased, partisan and compromised judicial appointments is not new. Yet
for the last 20 years, successive Supreme Court Collegiums steadfastly refused to
clean the stables and evolve a transparent, open and accountable procedure to
ensure that the best persons were appointed as judges to the High Courts and the
Supreme Court. Judges to these constitutional courts bear the great responsibility of
ensuring respect for the rule of law and ensuring that governance is based on
constitutional principles and vision.
The country deserves nothing short of the most competent, learned persons as judges
whose ethical conduct is beyond doubt. Irrespective of whether appointments are
Collegium based or through a new Judicial Commission, members of the Bar as also
citizens need to participate in the selection process. Our nations future cannot be
totally compromised because the powerful want to ensure their power in perpetuity.
The winds of change sweeping the world demanding greater participation, inclusion,
equity, accountability and transparency will eventually engulf the judiciary too. We
hope the wise persons in the judicial system will read the signs.
In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, members of the judiciary are
entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly; provided, however, that in
exercising such rights, judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to
preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the
judiciary." [10] Neither in Parliament nor in a State Legislature a discussion can take place with
respect to the conduct of the Supreme Court in discharge of his duties.
Articles 121 and 211 provide immunity to the members of Higher Judiciary, with respect to the
conduct of the Judges in the discharge of their duties. Article 211 amounts to an absolute
constitutional prohibition against any decision in the Legislature of a State in respect of the
judicial conduct of the Supreme Court or of the High Court. Article 121 on the other hand
provides for a general rule that no discussion shall take place in the Parliament with respect to
the conduct of any judge of the Supreme Court or of the High Court in the discharge of his
duties except upon a motion for presenting an address to the President praying for the removal
of the judge under the circumstances stated in the Constitution. Thus, reading Article 121 and
211 together, it is clear that the judicial conduct of a judge can not be discussed in the State
Legislature. It can be in Parliament only, upon a motion for presenting an address to the
President praying for the removal of the Judge. The Constitutional makers attached so much
importance to the independence of judiciary that they thought necessary to place them beyond
any controversy except in the manner provided in Article 121.
The fact that Article 211 appears under a topic dealing with Procedure Generally" cannot mean
that the prohibition prescribed by it is not mandatory. In trying to appreciate the full significance
of this provision, Article 121 and 211 should be read together. It is true that Article 194(2) in
terms provide for immunity of action in any court in respect of a speech made by a member or a
vote given by him in the Legislative Assembly. Undoubtedly, the Speaker would not permit a
member to contravene Article 211, but, if inadvertently or otherwise, a speech is made within
the legislature which contravenes Article 211, the Constitution-makers have given protection to
such speech from any action in any court. The House itself may and would, no doubt, take
action against the member. [11]
Removal Of A Judge:
A charge or complaint made against a judge in his/her judicial and professional capacity shall
be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the
right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stage shall be kept confidential,
unless otherwise requested by the judge." [12]
Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behavior
that renders them unfit to discharge their duties." [13]
All disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with
established standards of judicial conduct." [14]
Decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an
independent review. This principle may not apply to the decisions of the highest court and those
of the legislature in impeachment or similar proceedings." [15]
The manner of removal of a Judge, as brought out and made clear by Constitutional provisions,
SC interpretations and the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, and Judges Inquiry Rules, 1969, stands
summed up in Krishna Swami v. UOI [16] as follows, Every judge of the Supreme Court & High
Court on his appointment is irremovable from office during his tenure except in the manner
provided in Cls. (4) & (5) of Art. 124. The law made by the Parliament under Art. 124(5), namely
the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, (and Judges Inquiry Rules, 1969 framed there under) are to be
read along with Article 124(4), to find out the constitutional scheme.for the removal of a
judge. The law so made under Art. 124(5), provides that any accusation against a sitting Judge
to initiate the process of his removal has to be by not less than minimum number of members
of the Parliament specified in the Act, all other method being excluded. On initiation of the
process, the Speaker/Chairman has to decide whether the accusation requires investigation. If
he chooses not to act, the matter ends there..otherwise on a consideration of the material
available and after consulting such persons as he thinks fit, forms opinion that a prima facie
case is made out, he constitutes a Committee in accordance with s.3(2) of the Act. If this
..Committee.. records a finding that a Judge is not guilty, the process ends there..If the
finding of the Inquiry Committee is that the Judge is guilty, then the Parliament considers the
motion for removal of the Judge along with the Committees Report and other available
materials including the cause, if any, shown by the Judge concerned against his removal for
which he has to be given an opportunity after the submission of the report to the
Speaker/Chairman under s. 4(2) of the Act..If the Parliament does not adopt a motion for
removal of the Judge, the process ends thereIf the motion is adopted by the requisite
majority of the Parliament, culminating in the order for removal of the Judge by the President of
India under Art.124(4), then only the Judge shall have remedy of Judicial Review available on
the permissible grounds against the order of removal."
CONCLUSION
In mater of appointment, a lot has been said about the dangers of substituting absolute
Executive authority with absolute Chief Justice Authority. It is important to have a more
important broad based appointing body in the legal system, incorporating undoubtedly the
higher judicial functionaries but also giving representation to some outside elements form the
categories of eminent jurists, academics and both the ruling executive and the opposition.
Moreover this process would certainly be more transparent and open. In such broad based
appointing body at least two leading members of the bar must find representation. The manner
of selection/ nomination of those persons should be carefully thought out to ensure objectivity
and absence of conflict of interest.
The second crucial aspect which cannot be separated from the first is the vital necessity of a
workable mechanism for regulating judicial conduct, taking corrective action and if necessary
disciplining the errant judges shot of and up to removal.
Unless one puts in place a reasonable, internal, fair, expeditious and effective in house
regulatory regime short of impeachment, allegations against judges will always be on the rise.
The general dissatisfaction with the Courts self appointed role in appointment and transfer of
Judges has led to suggestions that it is high time that a National Judicial Commission should be
appointed which would not only consist of high judicial members but also other non-judicial
members and which would make recommendations for such appointments. The suggestion for
a National Judicial Commission has been made by the 80th and 121st reports of the law
commission of India. [17] A constitutional amendment (67th Amendment) bill 1990 was
formulated by the ministry of Justice in 1990 for setting up such a body but the bill lapsed on
the dissolution of the parliament. [18]
The independence of judiciary is an important concept being the basic principle of the
constitution but what has to be realized is that it is not an end in itself but only a means to
achieve an end. The end is to secure efficient, expeditious and impartial delivery of justice. The
main intention behind this principle is that the people should get justice, irrespective of their
status. This principle is required to instill confidence of the people in its Justice Delivery
System. Confidence is very important. Our society is usually peaceful, not because there is a
police force and lawyers to take you to the court. It is because people respect the courts and
the laws they apply. If, however, people loose confidence in the courts and think that they would
not receive a fair hearing, they might disrespect the law generally.
So any new step towards revamping the Judicial System should aim at balancing in the best
possible manner judicial independence and judicial accountability.
BY N SATHIYA MOORTHY
Stoning glass-house
Its sad that the BJP ministers, otherwise credited with long memories and sharp retorts, have
ended up in hyperboles that do not bring relief. They have referred to the US and other western
democracies, wherever members of the Judiciary are elected, or face incisive interrogation by
legislative panels, and at times, full-house vote, too. They have forgotten to mention that the
questioning over there is as much over the political ideology of the candidate, as about his/her
personal integrity. Despite the independence of the Judiciary and of the legislative processes,
both in terms of institutions and individual parliamentarians, the voting is invariably on political
lines.
Issues are delayed hearing, wantonly, by either the State or the Bench, owing to the
composition of the higher Judiciary (invariably the US Federal Supreme Court). Reams are
written in the Press about the socio-political and socio-economic ideologies of individual Judges
on the SC Bench at any given point in time to argue why a particular case would not come up
for hearing, or why a particular judgment could go in a particular way.
If nothing else, Indian Judiciary and polity has not reached a stage wherein a healthy discourse
could happen on the conduct of either institutions and/or individuals manning them. For that to
happen with respect to the nations most hallowed of all institutions, the polity and the society
have to prove their innocence, not ignorance, before attempting any change of the kind
arrogance is not a virtue for anyone concerned in handling what has already become a hyper-
issue.
Independent of whoever is in power, Governments in India would have to look itself up on the
mirror before commenting other institutions and individuals. They cannot afford to sit in glass
houses and afford to throw stones. The stones, in this case, does not travel long distances, to
hit at the target. It brings down the edifice that they are seated in. Definitely, it is not what the
likes of Minister Jaitely at least have in mind, just now.
Its anybodys guess why the Government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi took up the NJAC
law as among the nations topmost priorities after coming to power. True, the predecessor
Congress Government had talked openly about it for long. Then Union Law Minister M
Veerappa Moily even publicly promised to bring up a draft Bill for Parliaments consideration in
the winter session of 2011, only weeks ahead. Maybe because the 2-G cases sprang to life or
otherwise, none from UPA-II found the moral bearing to pilot a Bill of the kind at the time or
even later or, so it seems.
For their part, the Jaitley-Prasad combo and others in the Modi Government should ask
themselves why they did not have a candidate for Keralas Governors post other than the
recently retired CJI, in P Sathasivam. It is not to cast any aspersions on the personality or
integrity of CJI Sathasivam, but only to question the politically flawed nature of his choice, or
that of anyone else in his place. It also goes with the choice of Gen V K Singh, the recently-
retired Army chief, as a Minister in the Modi Government, or the UPA-IIs Home Secretary, R P
Singh, for a BJP nomination for a Lok Sabha seat, which he won.
The less said about the Congress-BJP mutual whip-lash over the political misuse of the CBI, or
other Central agencies when in power, the better. After all, T N Chaturvedi, who as the
Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG), who exposed the HBW submarine scam involving a
predecessor Congress Government, became a BJP member of the Rajya Sabha not long after
retirement and the Governor of Karnataka, when the Vajpayee-led BJP-NDA was in power at
the Centre.
It was no way different when the Congress rival was in power. Apart from all the accusations
levelled against the party in terms of appointments to other independent institutions such as
the CAG and CBI (even after the SC verdict and directions in the Vineet Narain case, including
the UPA-IIs last appointment of the CAG, the Congress Government of the day also ensured
that Parliament decided the first-ever impeachment proceedings against a sitting judge
(Justice V Ramaswami), in political, and not legal, judicial or moral terms.
How could then the likes of Minister Jaitley indicate that elected representatives of the people
are not involved they are involved in sacking, not appointing a judge? In a way, the
appointing authority in the President not having the power to sack a Judge, and the sacking
authority in Parliament doing so without being the appointing authority in the first place, should
be against the tenets of constitutional behaviour and in a way against the basic structure of
the Constitution.
Corrections within
It is not unlikely that the SC judgment in the NJAC case derived not from the speeches made
in Parliament or outside, but by the Governments lawyers and the rest within the court halls.
The sketchy newspaper reports at the time and substantial portions of the 4-1 majority verdict
are indicative of such thinking. Hence, the solution to the current problem of ensuring
transparency in judicial appointments, promotions and transfers could and should also flow
from the SC verdict itself.
The fact is that any other harsh observations of the Jaitely-Prasad kind are not going to change
the reality. Nor should the BJP continue to be in the Opposition political mode even one and
half years after coming to power at the Centre, and try to embarrass and fix the present-day
Opposition, on what essentially remains an academic issue and in the process challenge the
authority of the only constitutional institution in the country on which the nation has maximum
faith in. It can cut in more ways than one the BJP and the nation could well be the worse
sufferers, and not necessarily in that order.
At least this time round, the BJP /Government leadership should consult the political Opposition
in Parliament with sincerity, and not bent on pushing them into a corner or score a debating
point, all over again. Reading between the lines, the majority verdict provides enough material
for the Government to push through additional reforms to the just struck-down processes.
There being clear unanimity among parliamentarians and political parties on holding the
Judiciary accountable, and judicial appointments transparent, a solution could still be found
within the pages of the majority verdict on the one hand, and the four walls of the Constitution,
otherwise.
In its Jan Sangh avtar, the BJP was not known to have questioned the basic structure theory
enunciated by the Supreme Court in the Keshavananda Bharati case (1973), without definition
but only through application. On the occasion, the SC held that Judicial Review was a basic
structure of the Constitution. Maybe because it hurt the political ego of the Congress rulers of
the day than the non-existent Opposition of the day, the Jan Sangh and the rest of the
Opposition did not complain.
There is a larger lesson from political philosophy for the BJP rulers and the nation from the
NJAC case verdict. Independent of what the SC has ruled and what Government and
Parliament intend doing starting possibly with a review petition, which again will go to the
same Bench it is but natural in government systems, particularly vibrant democracies like
Indias, that one institution fills the vacuum, created in reality or otherwise, by the momentary
absence/weakness of one or the other of the rest.
It was thus that when the Executive became weak, or perceived as being weak, and the
Legislature was considered a rubber-stamp of the former, the Election Commission (EC) filled
the vacuum in the Nineties, and kept the all-round democratic hopes of the people alive. Today,
when the Government at the Centre commands an absolute majority in Parliament (and for the
first time in 25 years, and thus for a new generation of voters from that era), the SC could be
deemed to have stepped in, to fill the vacuum (whatever the occasion and circumstances).
When all institutions failed, as was during the Emergency era, the people filled the vacuum
themselves, when it came to their turn, in the 1977 elections. There is a lesson in it, not just for
PM Modi, his Government and the BJP, or for the polity alone. There is a lesson in it for
everyone else, and every institution, starting with the present-day voter, too!
To,
New Delhi.
Honourable Sir ,
Since 25 years I am appealing to apex court for justice concerning various public issues , no
justice in sight but injustices meted out one after another. But the same judges are
SHAMELESSLY taking huge pay perks for years now are also poised to get almost triple
fold salary increase. Parasites feeding on Indian Public. Whenever questions of
accountability are asked judges level contempt charges against the questioner or police fix
him in fake cases or he is silenced by threats , murders , denial of jobs , etc. Since 25 years
in many ways they are trying to silence me. Just take the recent example of Justice Karnan
who leveled corruption charges against specific judges with CJI. Instead of conducting a fair
investigation into the matter , CJI tried to silence him by serving him contempt notice.
Our Judges , Police are NOT Perfect Not Satya Harischandras . There are criminals as well
as honest people side by side in judiciary & police. We whole heartedly respect honest few
in judiciary , police & public service. But we detest corrupt judges , corrupt police. Honest
Judges & Police are not coming into open to prosecute their corrupt colleagues, why ?
silenced ?
Criminalization of all wings of government has taken place , unfit people are in the positions of
power. Corruption in judiciary , police , CBI , CVC , Public service is rampant. Now MAFIA is at
work. Only few scandals , scams become public , many are buried. If one criminal public
servant is caught other public servant who is also a criminal conducts name sake
investigation , gives report , clean chit. Law courts rely on the government reports as
evidences , courts are not bothered about credibility of reports or investigations. It is quid pro
quo. Therefore technically criminal public servants are never proved for their crimes &
convicted , as investigation itself is not fair.
A Crime may happen without the knowledge of police but cannt continue for years without
the connivance of police. A Crime reported to court cannt continue for years without
connivance of judges.
At the bottom of the paper , I have given web sites about few ACB raids on government
officials and unearthing of crores worth property. How they have earned it , by misusing their
official positions. Therefore government reports , records prepared by these officials ,
investigations conducted by corrupt police are suspect. But Law courts in various cases ,
considers government reports , records , statements of government officials as sacrosanct .
Therefore in many cases injustice is meted out by court , as they depend on reports of
corrupt government officials , corrupt police.
The public servants & the government must be role models in law abiding acts , for others to
emulate & follow. if a student makes a mistake it is excusable & can be corrected by the
teacher. if the teacher himself makes a mistake , all his students will do the same mistake. if a
thief steals , he can be caught , legally punished & reformed . if a police himself commits crime
, many thieves go scot-free under his patronage. even if a police , public servant commits a
crime , he can be legally prosecuted & justice can be sought by the aggrieved. just think , if a
judge himself that too of apex court of the land himself commits crime - violations of RTI Act ,
constitutional rights & human rights of public and obstructs the public from performing their
constitutional fundamental duties , what happens ?
"Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders
will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly
hearts. They will fight among themselves for power and will be lost in political
squabbles . A day would come when even air & water will be taxed." Sir Winston
made this statement in the House of Commons just before the independence of India
& Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been proved right
by some of our criminal , corrupt peoples representatives , police , public servants
& Judges.
I dont know whether secretariat staff of CJI office & DARPG / DPG officials are forwarding my
appeals for justice , e-mails to you or not. They will be held accountable for their lapses if any.
This notice is against the repeated failure of constitutional duties & indirect collusion with
criminals by previous CHIEF JUSTICEs OF INDIA. Notice is served against them , to the office
of CJI , NOT personally against you.
DLGLA/E/2013/00292
DEPOJ/E/2013/00679
In india democracy is a farce , freedom a mirage. the most basic freedom RIGHT TO
INFORMATION & EXPRESSION , is not honoured by the government,as the information opens
up the crimes of V.V.I.Ps & leads to their ill-gotten wealth. The public servants are least
bothered about the lives of people or justice to them. these type of fat cats , parasites are a
drain on the public exchequer . these people want ,wish me to see dead , wish to see HUMAN
RIGHTS WATCH closed . so that, a voice against injustices is silenced forever , the crimes
of V.V.I.Ps closed , buried forever.
To my numerous appeals , HRWs appeals to you ,you have not yet replied. It clearly shows
that you are least bothered about the lives of people or justice to them .it proves that you are
hell bent to protect the criminals at any cost. you are just pressurising the police to enquire
me ,to take my statement, to repeatedly call me to police station all with a view to silence me.all
of you enjoy legal immunity privileges ,why dont you have given powers to the police /
investigating officer to summon all of you for enquiry ?or else why dont all of you are not
appearing before the police voluntarily for enquiry ?at the least why dont all of you are not
sending your statement about the case to the police either through legal counsel or through
post? you are aiding criminals ,by denying me job oppurtunities in R.B.I CURRENCY NOTE
PRESS mysore , city civil court ,bangalore , distict court , mysore ,etc & by illegally closing my
newspaper. Even Press accreditation to me as a web journalist is denied till date. there is a
gross, total mismatch between your actions and your oath of office. this amounts to public
cheating & moral turpitude on your part.
1.you are making contempt of the very august office you hold.
2.you are making contempt of the constitution of india.
3.you are making contempt of citizens of india.
4.you are sponsoring & aiding terorrism & organized crime.
5.you are violating the fundamental & human rights of the citizens of india and of neighbouring
countries.
6.you are violating & making contempt of the U.N HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER to which india is
a signatory.
7.you are obstructing me from performing my fundamental duties as a citizen of india.
8. As a result of your gross negligence of constitutional duties you have caused me damages /
losses to the tune of RUPEES TWO CRORE ONLY.
9. You are responsible for crime cover ups mentioned in my RTI Appeals , PILs and
continuation of those crimes unabated.
10. You are responsible for denial of information, which vindicates the crimes of powers that
be.
11. You are responsible for physical assaults , murder attempts on me.
12. You are responsible for job denials to me at NIE , PES Engineering college , RBI Press ,
Mysore , Bangalore Courts.
13. You are responsible for my illegal retrenchment from RPG Cables , denial of medical care
to me towards occupational health problems.
16. You are responsible for denial of press accreditation to me as a web journalist till date.
17. You are responsible for repeatedly passing on my appeals to police. So that they can
take statements , close the file under the threat of police power.
19. In terms of Integrity , Honesty You & other public servants are nowhere near Baba
Saheb B R Ambedkar , Mahatma Gandhi & Satya Harishchandra . Many Public servants are
UNFIT to be in their posts.
You are hereby called upon to Pay damages to me and SHOW-CAUSE within 30 days
, why you cannt be legally prosecuted for the above mentioned crimes . If you dont
answer it will be admission of the charges by you. It will amount to confession of
crimes on your own.
If i am repeatedly called to police station or else where for the sake of investigations , the
losses i do incurr as a result like loss of wages , transportation , job , etc must be borne by the
government. prevoiusly the police / IB personnel repeatedly called me the complainant (sufferer
of injustices) to police station for questioning , but never called the guilty culprits even once to
police station for questioning , as the culprits are high & mighty . this type of one sided
questioning must not be done by police or investigating agencies . if anything untoward
happens to me or to my family members like loss of job , meeting with hit & run accidents , loss
of lives , etc , the jurisdictional police together with above mentioned accussed public servants ,
Chief Justice of India & Jurisdictional District Magistrate will be responsible for it. Even if
criminal nexus levels fake charges , police file fake cases against me or my dependents to
silence me , this complaint is & will be effective.
Send reply to :
Laxmikantanagar , Hebbal ,
Mysuru 570017.
Date : 05.03.2017..yours sincerely,
Place : Mysore , India.Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi
IN THE MATTER OF
NAGARAJA . M.R
....Petitioner
Versus
....Respondents
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 &
ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
To ,
For example real estate mafia grabs BEML Quarters lake , Kaynes Hootagalli Lake ,
Ningaih lake , Hebbal lakes in mysuru creates fake title deeds and even gets it registered by
sub registrar all with the help corrupt officials in government. Even police protect the rich
land grabber. When a case is made out in the court of law for eviction of lake encroachers ,
judge simply goes through the technicalities of government documents. Based on official
documents he gives a green signal to encroacher and orders for protection of his encroached
properties. Lakes are nobodys property , it is a public property and to be preserved for public
usage. The good Samaritan Indian Citizen who did his Fundamental Duties of Protecting
Lakes lost money , time, faced abuses / remarks from the judge , faced life threat from land
mafia & police. All for nothing.
One more example , a citizen while passing through a public road witnesses an accident ,
takes the injured to the hospital for emergency treatment to save life and informs police
regarding accident making vehicle. Instead of appreciating his good work , police fits him in
the case , case drags on for years making the good citizen loose his money , time & job. Also ,
he is threatened by vehicle owner who made the accident , no protection to the citizen for
doing his :Fundamental Duties.
In this way , there are numerous cases of Indian Citizens , whistle blowers , RTI Activists ,
Journalists who themselves suffered gross injustices for raising public causes , for doing their
Fundamental Duties. No Justice to them even from apex court till date.
Every citizen of india must perform his / her Fundamental Duties without fail, before
demanding his fundamental rights. Every public servant must do their constitutional duties
without fail.
A citizen performs fundamental duties without any rewards or pay or perks where as a
government official / public servant does his / her duties for huge pay & perks.
A citizen while performing his fundamental duties often has to spend his own money ,
time to fight legal cases , etc. Whereas a public servant spends nothing during the course of
his public duties, everything is borne by state exchequer.
A citizen while performing his fundamental duties faces rowdy elements , physical
assaults in few instances even resulting in his own murder. His family doesnt get even a
penny compensation from exchequer. Whereas a public servant enjoys the full police protection
in the course of his duties and even if anything untoward happens his family will get
compensation.
Obstructing a Citizen from performing his fundamental duties doesnt attract any legal
prosecution whereas obstruction of public servants constitutional duties is a crime under IPC.
2. Question(s) of Law:
Are Fundamental Duties of Indian Citizens Supreme or the Illegal acts , orders by corrupt
Government officials (Legalizing illegal acts) Supreme ?
3. Grounds:
Requests for equitable justice , Prosecution of corrupt judges , police , public servants
responsible for injustices , obstructions to Fundamental Duties of citizens.
4. Averment:
https://www.scribd.com/document/329980170/Traitors-in-Judiciary-Police ,
Crimes by Khaki
https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/crimes-by-khaki
FIRST Answer Judges Police
https://www.scribd.com/document/336585411/FIRST-Answer-Judges-Police
https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/shame-shame-judges ,
https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/shame-shame-judges
There is a higher court than the court of justice and that is the court of conscience It
supercedes all other courts.
- Mahatma Gandhi
Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : writ of
Mandamus and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the cases
mentioned at above web sites , to perform their duties & to answer the questions.
The Petitioner has sent many letters / appeals / petitions to supreme court of india & other
courts through e-mail , DARPG website & through regular mail requesting them to consider
those as PILs. But none of them were admitted , even acknowledgement for receipts were not
given. See How duty conscious ,our judges are & see how our judges are sensitive towards
life , liberty of citizens , common men & see how careless our judges are towards anti national
crimes , crimes worth crores of rupees. That the present petitioner has not filed any other
petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the
subject matter of the present petition.
PRAYER:
In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:
1. To make obstruction of Fundamental Duties of an Indian Citizen a legally
punishable offence on par with the obstruction of a public servants duties.
2. To pay compensation of Rupees Two Crores and above to RTI Activists , Whistle
Blowers , Journalists , ordinary citizens who paid with their lives or suffered injuries in the
course of their fundamental duties.
3. To order for inspection , investigation of each & every issue raised by a citizen in the
course of his fundamental duties instead of simply relying on government records alone
prepared by corrupt officials.
5. To admit all the PILs sent by me to supreme court of india and to order the concerned
public servants to give proper reply to all RTI Appeals made by me.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/notice-to-chief-justice ,
Judicial Tyranny
https://sites.google.com/site/dalitsdiary/judicial-tyranny ,
edited , printed , published & owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ : LIG-2 / 761 , HUDCO
FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS OFFICE , LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR
,HEBBAL ,MYSORE -570017 INDIA
cell : 91 8970318202
home page:
http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in/ ,
https://in.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dalitsdiary/ ,
https://sites.google.com/site/dalitsdiary/ ,
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/dalits--diary ,
https://dalitsdiary.blogspot.in/ ,
https://eclarionofdalit.wordpress.com/ ,
http://thecitizens.torpress2sarn7xw.onion/ ,