Judiciary Today And india Tomorror By Divyangna `Trivedi, Distinguished Member at ICJ London
Wikipedia describes the supreme court as,” As the final court of appeal of the country, it takes up appeals primarily against verdicts of the High courts and other courts and tribunals. It safeguards fundamental rights of citizens and settles disputes between various governments in the country. As an advisory court, it hears matters which may specifically be referred to it under the Constitution by the President. It also may take cognisance of matters on its own (or ‘suo moto’), without anyone drawing its attention to them. The law declared by the Supreme Court becomes binding on all courts within India and also by the union and state governments. Per article 142 it is the duty of President to enforce the decrees of Supreme Court.”
But what is the condition today makes me upset and worried about our future which may be terrible. If judiciary is taken over then what will happen to democracy?
The term “judiciary” is also used to refer collectively to the personnel, such as judges, magistrates and other adjudicators, who form the core of a judiciary (sometimes referred to as “bench”), as well as the staffs who keep the system running smoothly.
Out of the three parts of our government judiciary has supremacy and is given the power of checks and balances and the chief justice is given the power of master of the roster. Master of the Roster’ refers to the privilege of the Chief Justice to constitute Benches to hear cases.
When a Constitution Bench, led by the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, declared that “the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and he alone has the prerogative to constitute the Benches of the Court and allocate cases to the Benches so constituted.”
It further said that “no Judge can take up the matter on this own, unless allocated by the Chief Justice of India, as he is the master of the roster.”
The immediate trigger for this was a direction by a two-judge Bench (led by Justice Chelameswar) that a petition regarding a medical college corruption case, involving an alleged conspiracy to bribe Supreme Court judges, be heard by a Bench fo the five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
They regard it as “one of the well-settled principles” and a convention that is important for an orderly transaction of business. But, they write in the letter, it isn’t a recognition of superior authority of the Chief Justice over his colleagues. Their point is that the Chief Justice is only the “first among equals,” a phrase that Chief Justice Misra himself had used in the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms vs. Union of India order.
In their letter, the four judges have also written that there are “well-settled and time honoured conventions guiding the Chief Justice” in the determination of the roster, including those about the strength of the Bench to deal with a particular case. Of late, they write, these rules haven’t been strictly adhered to.
“There have been instances where cases having far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution had been assigned by the Chief Justice of this Court selectively to the Benches “of their preferences” without any rational basis for such assignment.”
Beginning with the suspicious Sohrabuddin encounter continuing with Loya’s suspicious death and ending with nothing but translucency of the system, the country is perplexed.
Such suspense is not even seen in the best of Sherlock Holmes.
A lot of writers are giving perplexed notions but I would like to put it t and exact that this is a case of shear corruption. It is evident from the circumstances that Judge Loya did not die of a sudden heart attack but that he was made to have a heart attack. This may sound very illogical but this is available in information that one party leader is involved in the case and so it is not pronounced in the public.
The Chief justice is no doubt the master of the roster but in no way is he the dictator to our judicial system with the help of any political influence.
The working of the apex court has always preferred seniority and the four senior most judges standing up are very correct on their dictum in every way. Many I observed are giving stodgy arguments such that , If it’s a question of seniority then the CJI is the senior most but then he is not deciding the case either, he is just distributing the cases with a biased approach. I salute all his judgments and credentials but what his current action has been showing is not acceptable.
I agree and salute all the following credits of him :
He also led the bench that upheld the death sentence awarded to the four convicts in the Nirbhaya rape case.
He was also part of the bench that ordered mandatory playing of the National Anthem at the beginning of every film in cinema halls.
Some of his notable orders include directing Delhi Police to upload FIRs on their website within 24 hours of registration, to allow downloading and early redressal of grievances.
He was also a part of the bench that rejected the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to provide reservation in promotion, saying it can be allowed only in the presence of sufficient data and evidence to justify it.
He rejected a frivolous petition that objected to the title of the film ‘Dhobi Ghat’, warning the petitioner.
He will head a three-judge bench to hear a batch of petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute case from August 11.
Being the National Legal Services Authority executive chairman, introducing Legal Assistance Establishments in states to streamline activities to provide free legal aid to the needy, was his brainchild.
CJI Dipak Misra will be the third judge from Odisha to become the Chief Justice of India, after his uncle, Justice Ranganath Misra and Justice GB Pattanaik.
“The bedrock of our democracy is the rule of law and that means we have to have an independent judiciary, judges who can make decisions independent of the political winds that are blowing.”- Caroline Kennedy
A Supreme Court justice needs to understand that he is not a politician. He needs to understand that the judiciary is a passive branch of government. His decisions should not proactively seek to set policy.-“ Thomas Rex Lee
”The judiciary must be strengthened and released from political interference.”-AUNG SAAN SUU KYI