The Hindustan Times reported that the Collegium of judges in the Supreme Court had sent a recommendation to the Law Ministry that three judges i.e. the Chief justices of Madras, Patna and Kerala High Courts — Justices A.K. Ganguly, R.M. Lodha and H.L. Dattu be elevated to the Supreme Court.
However, this recommendation has raised a storm because it overlooks or supercedes three Chief Justices who are senior to the chosen three, viz. The Chief Justices of Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand High Courts — Justices A.P. Shah, A.K. Patnaik and V.K. Gupta.
HT pointed out that the records showed that Justice Gupta became a High Court Judge in 1990 and was elevated to the post of Chief Justice in 2000. Justice Shah became a Judge in 1992 and a Chief Justice in 2005. Justice Patnaik became a Judge in 1994 and a Chief Justice in 2005.
In comparison, Justice Dattu became a Judge in 1995 and was elevated to the position of Chief Justice in 2007. Justice Ganguly was also made a Chief Justice last year. Justice Lodha became a Chief Justice only in May this year.
No reasons were apparently given by the Collegium for the supersession of the three senior judges though it was hinted that “performance” and “conduct” may have played a part.
It was reported that Supreme Court officials had defended the recommendations by stating: “Seniority is one of the criterion for elevation of judges to the Supreme Court but other factors like performance as a judge and the conduct is also taken into account.”
This move has given plenty of fodder to those opposed to the Collegium system of selecting judges for elevation. The Law Minister H.R. Bhardwaj has already gone on record to say that the Collegium system has failed.
The Bar Council of India was reported as being very critical of the supersession and the opaque manner in which the recommendations had been made.
It asked the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to make public the reasons why three senior-most high court Chief Justices were denied promotion as Supreme Court Judges. It pointed out that the CJI had to come forward and clear the confusion, “which could demoralise higher judiciary in the country”.
Its chairman Suraj Narain Prasad Sinha did not mince words when he said, “The latest recommendations of the Collegium raise serious doubts on the procedure for judges’ appointments. There is no way the discredited Collegium system can be defended. The least that can be done is to make public the reasons why senior judges were superseded.”
The Bar urged the CJI KG Balakrishnan to review the collegium’s decision. It emphasized that the decision proved that there was “no transparency in the collegium system” and that it smacked of “nepotism” and that it was high time the system was “scrapped”. It urged the CJI to show courage to review such a decision.
Respected Sir
Awating four reply
Respected Sir
I am not blaming to good judges. Before appointing to any justice have to take outh. But after appoint sum of judges may be furgot the outh. And thas why this is happing. Sir
I am bring to your notice that in our case our company was on unmber one rubber company in India. Area of company is about 18R in prime location of pune. There is no need to shipt the Co. from Khadki to MIDC Chinchwad in arental basis. In year 2000 Management shipped the Co. at MIDC Chinchwad & In year 2004 Management closed the Company and land of Khadki Unit sold to builder in between 2000 to 2003. Pune Labour court also not think about it and Bombay High Court also given a permitation for winding up in 2003. But till date we are unjustified. So any one can say that the justices of Bombay High court are courrepted. And only of this reason till date we are unjustificted suffering in very bad pach. I am sorry to write such type. But we are suffring only for courpted judges those who had been given this design. Thanking You hope Sir You will help us before the sole is in my hart.
The SHARP AND OPEN attack on a Sitting CJI by Justice Mr.Katju on the point of constructing a house worth about RS 50 crores with out disclosing the source and further the Manner of not disclosing the reasons for keeping back the Chief Justices of Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand High Courts — Justices A.P. Shah, A.K. Patnaik and V.K. Gupta from elevation are shocking and paining to hear.
The entire system of selection and elevation need transparency and it must be televised to public view. Above all, the 5o crore direct allegation is neither denied nor replied suitably publicly to instill confidence in the mind of people. If it is a false allegation what prevented the Government or the personally affected CJI to lodge a complaint and why such action is not taken. All these make the public to doubt about the judiciary’s integrity and purity.
Therefore instead of Impeaching system there has to be a special commission to enquire about the corruption complaint against judges and if prima facie material found then the suspension of a judge has to be ordered pending enquiry as that of others as nobody is above law. Further, as per Prevention of Corruption act a FIR has to be registered on the basis of the report by the commission of Enquiry and the investigation has to be done and the offender must be tried. if offence is proved the entire property of the convicted Judge must be confiscated and he must be given imprisonment not less than 15 years. Then only the corruption in High level judiciary can be avoided. If any false complaint is given the person who gave false allegation must be given 20 years imprisonment with heavy cost in crores. So that false and evasive complaint can be avoided against good judges.