Brazil's far-right President Jair Bolsonaro ignored calls to drop his feud with the Supreme Court on Friday and called one of its justices a "son of a whore," amid rising tensions over his unfounded claims the nation's voting system is vulnerable to fraud. 
 
Speaking to supporters in southern Brazil, he insulted Luis Roberto Barroso, the top court justice who also heads the Supreme Electoral Court. The insult was uttered during a live broadcast shared on Bolsonaro's Facebook account but later deleted. Copies continue to be shared on social media. 
 
Justice Barroso, speaking at a forum on electoral systems after the comments, said that if his actions were causing such a nuisance, it was a sign he was doing his job properly. 
 
Bolsonaro has railed for weeks against the electronic urns used in Brazil and pushed for the adoption of printed receipts that can be counted if any election result is disputed. 
 
Critics say Bolsonaro, like former US&nbsp;President Donald Trump, is sowing doubts in case he loses next year's presidential election. He has threatened not to accept the result if the system is not changed. 
 
With his popularity falling after overseeing the world's second-highest COVID-19 death toll, opinion polls show Bolsonaro trails former leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, though neither of them has officially announced they will run. 
 
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court approved an investigation into the president's unfounded accusations about voter fraud. 
 
On Thursday, in Bolsonaro's worst set-back in Congress since taking office in 2019, a lower house committee voted to shelve a constitutional amendment he has been pushing that would have adopted printed ballots. 
 
Speaker Arthur Lira, however, said on Friday he would put the controversial amendment to the plenary despite the committee defeat. He explained the decision saying that a quick resolution was preferable because political tensions over the issue are holding up the country's legislative agenda. 
 
The proposal is not expected to clear the lower chamber where constitutional amendments need three-fifths of the votes. 
 
Earlier on Friday, Senate President Rodrigo Pacheco criticized Bolsonaro for his attacks on the Supreme Court and offered to mediate, saying the president's insults against Barroso were unacceptable. 
 
Pacheco said Bolsonaro must respect the results of next year's election even if he fails to change the all-electronic voting system - which the president groundlessly claims is vulnerable to tampering. 
 
"Any threat, however slight, to this democracy will be promptly rejected by the Senate," Pacheco said in a GloboNews television interview. 
 
The Senate head said anyone advocating a "democratic retreat" or the suspension of next year's elections would be seen as an "enemy of the nation." 
 
"I think a majority in Congress at this moment want to maintain the electronic voting system," he said.

Brazil's far-right President Jair Bolsonaro ignored calls to drop his feud with the Supreme Court on Friday and called one of its justices a "son of a whore," amid rising tensions over his unfounded claims the nation's voting system is vulnerable to fraud.

Brazil's far-right President Jair Bolsonaro ignored calls to drop his feud with the Supreme Court on Friday and called one of its justices a "son of a whore," amid rising tensions over his unfounded claims the nation's voting system is vulnerable to fraud. Speaking to supporters in southern Brazil, he insulted Luis Roberto Barroso, the top court justice who also heads the Supreme Electoral Court. The insult was uttered during a live broadcast shared on Bolsonaro's Facebook account but later deleted. Copies continue to be shared on social media. Justice Barroso, speaking at a forum on electoral systems after the comments, said that if his actions were causing such a nuisance, it was a sign he was doing his job properly. Bolsonaro has railed for weeks against the electronic urns used in Brazil and pushed for the adoption of printed receipts that can be counted if any election result is disputed. Critics say Bolsonaro, like former US President Donald Trump, is sowing doubts in case he loses next year's presidential election. He has threatened not to accept the result if the system is not changed. With his popularity falling after overseeing the world's second-highest COVID-19 death toll, opinion polls show Bolsonaro trails former leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, though neither of them has officially announced they will run. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court approved an investigation into the president's unfounded accusations about voter fraud. On Thursday, in Bolsonaro's worst set-back in Congress since taking office in 2019, a lower house committee voted to shelve a constitutional amendment he has been pushing that would have adopted printed ballots. Speaker Arthur Lira, however, said on Friday he would put the controversial amendment to the plenary despite the committee defeat. He explained the decision saying that a quick resolution was preferable because political tensions over the issue are holding up the country's legislative agenda. The proposal is not expected to clear the lower chamber where constitutional amendments need three-fifths of the votes. Earlier on Friday, Senate President Rodrigo Pacheco criticized Bolsonaro for his attacks on the Supreme Court and offered to mediate, saying the president's insults against Barroso were unacceptable. Pacheco said Bolsonaro must respect the results of next year's election even if he fails to change the all-electronic voting system - which the president groundlessly claims is vulnerable to tampering. "Any threat, however slight, to this democracy will be promptly rejected by the Senate," Pacheco said in a GloboNews television interview. The Senate head said anyone advocating a "democratic retreat" or the suspension of next year's elections would be seen as an "enemy of the nation." "I think a majority in Congress at this moment want to maintain the electronic voting system," he said.

'He's son of a wh**e': Brazil President insults Supreme Court judge during live broadcast

Protesters gathered in several French cities Sunday to denounce a court's refusal of a trial for a man who killed a 65-year-old Jewish woman, after experts determined he acted in a "delirious fit" due to heavy marijuana use.

The decision infuriated the victim's family as well as Jewish groups, and prompted President Emmanuel Macron to urge a change in French law to ensure people face responsibility for violent crimes while under the influence of drugs.

Sarah Halimi was pushed out the window of her Paris flat by neighbour Kobili Traore, 27, who shouted "Allahu Akbar" ("God is greatest" in Arabic).

Have a look |&nbsp;<a href="Woman's murder by alleged harasser in Kuwait sparks protest, outrage">Woman's murder by alleged harasser in Kuwait sparks protest, outrage</a>

The country's highest court said this month that while the murder was anti-Semitic, Traore could not be held criminally responsible since he had acted in a state of dementia.

He has been in psychiatric care since Halimi's death.

"The clamour has risen and hope has returned. That hope is all of you here," Halimi's brother William Attal told a crowd of several thousand at the Trocadero esplanade in Paris.

The MP who leads Macron's Republic on the Move party, Christophe Castaner, addressed the protest, which was also attended by opposition leaders and by several well-known actors.

Former French first lady Carla Bruni, wife of Nicolas Sarkozy, also appeared at the Paris rally, as did Mayor Anne Hidalgo, who said the city would soon name a street in Halimi's memory.

"It will also be a way of doing her justice," Hidalgo said.

Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti confirmed Sunday that a new penal responsibility law would be presented by end May to fill a "legal void".

But France's CSM judiciary council rejected the government's "disparagement" on Sunday and insisted that judges had correctly applied the law in a "painful" case.

Between 1,500 and 2,000 people also marched at a protest in the Mediterranean city of Marseille, while around 600 gathered outside a synagogue in the eastern city of Strasbourg, authorities said.

Jewish groups say the court ruling has made Jews less safe in France, while lawyers representing Halimi's family have said they will take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.&nbsp;

French Jews have been repeatedly targeted by jihadists in recent years, most notably in 2012, when an Islamist gunman shot dead three children and a teacher at a Jewish school in the southern city of Toulouse.

In 2015, a pro-Islamic State radical gunned down four people at a Jewish supermarket in Paris.

Protesters gathered in several French cities Sunday to denounce a court's refusal of a trial for a man who killed a 65-year-old Jewish woman, after experts determined he acted in a "delirious fit" due to heavy marijuana use.

Protesters gathered in several French cities Sunday to denounce a court's refusal of a trial for a man who killed a 65-year-old Jewish woman, after experts determined he acted in a "delirious fit" due to heavy marijuana use. The decision infuriated the victim's family as well as Jewish groups, and prompted President Emmanuel Macron to urge a change in French law to ensure people face responsibility for violent crimes while under the influence of drugs. Sarah Halimi was pushed out the window of her Paris flat by neighbour Kobili Traore, 27, who shouted "Allahu Akbar" ("God is greatest" in Arabic). Have a look | Woman's murder by alleged harasser in Kuwait sparks protest, outrage The country's highest court said this month that while the murder was anti-Semitic, Traore could not be held criminally responsible since he had acted in a state of dementia. He has been in psychiatric care since Halimi's death. "The clamour has risen and hope has returned. That hope is all of you here," Halimi's brother William Attal told a crowd of several thousand at the Trocadero esplanade in Paris. The MP who leads Macron's Republic on the Move party, Christophe Castaner, addressed the protest, which was also attended by opposition leaders and by several well-known actors. Former French first lady Carla Bruni, wife of Nicolas Sarkozy, also appeared at the Paris rally, as did Mayor Anne Hidalgo, who said the city would soon name a street in Halimi's memory. "It will also be a way of doing her justice," Hidalgo said. Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti confirmed Sunday that a new penal responsibility law would be presented by end May to fill a "legal void". But France's CSM judiciary council rejected the government's "disparagement" on Sunday and insisted that judges had correctly applied the law in a "painful" case. Between 1,500 and 2,000 people also marched at a protest in the Mediterranean city of Marseille, while around 600 gathered outside a synagogue in the eastern city of Strasbourg, authorities said. Jewish groups say the court ruling has made Jews less safe in France, while lawyers representing Halimi's family have said they will take the case to the European Court of Human Rights. French Jews have been repeatedly targeted by jihadists in recent years, most notably in 2012, when an Islamist gunman shot dead three children and a teacher at a Jewish school in the southern city of Toulouse. In 2015, a pro-Islamic State radical gunned down four people at a Jewish supermarket in Paris.

Protests in France over no trial for Jewish woman's killer

As Democrats look to the incoming Biden administration to reverse much of President Donald Trump’s work, the conservative imprint he has left on the federal courts is only deepening.

Much attention in recent months has focused on the Supreme Court and its newly appointed justice, Amy Coney Barrett. But an analysis of decisions by the country’s appellate bench — where nearly all contested federal litigation ends — shows the transformation of the judiciary under Trump.

Early this year, The New York Times reviewed more than 10,000 published decisions and dissents during the first three years of the Trump administration. It found that the president’s picks for the appeals courts were more likely than past Republican appointees to disagree with peers selected by Democrats and more likely to agree with their Republican colleagues, suggesting they were more consistently conservative.

An updated analysis of more than 1,700 opinions published over the first six months of the year shows that the trend has intensified as the judges have established a larger body of work.

“It’s more polarized,” said Joshua Fischman, a law professor at the University of Virginia. “We’ve seen a huge conservative shift. A lot of these judges are very young, and they’ll be there for a long time.”

Trump has named 53 of the 165 judges on the nation’s regional appeals courts, lifetime appointments that will have a vast and enduring effect. Most cases on the courts are decided unanimously by three-person panels, and dissent is relatively rare. But as a group, his selections were nearly four times as likely to clash with colleagues appointed by Democratic presidents as those appointed by Republicans. Judges nominated by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush showed the same tendency, but to half the extent.

The judges who exhibited the pattern included some who had been under consideration for the Supreme Court and some who had deep political connections on Capitol Hill. One had done legal work for Trump’s 2016 campaign and later, as acting head of the Justice Department’s civil division, was in charge of defending high-profile presidential policies that came under attack in the courts.

Yet while Trump has made clear that he expects loyalty from his judicial appointees, they have ruled against him in lawsuits that his campaign brought regarding the 2020 election. Most notably, Barrett last week joined her fellow justices in denying an effort by Texas to overturn the Biden victory in four battleground states.

At the appeals level, Judge Stephanos Bibas of the 3rd Circuit, nominated in 2017, wrote a blistering decision last month rejecting the Trump campaign’s election challenge in Pennsylvania. And Judge Andrew L. Brasher of the 11th Circuit, appointed this year, wrote an opinion this month rebuffing the campaign’s effort to bypass the lower federal court and decertify Georgia’s election results.

Fischman said that to rule differently would have been to flout the law. “It’s completely against judicial culture,” he said. “They just could not be taken seriously as judges if they sided with Trump here.”

Bibas and Brasher serve on courts that Trump has flipped toward conservative majorities. While Bibas was not among the most disputatious of the appointees, according to the analysis, he dissented in a significant gun-rights case in which two Democratic appointees upheld New Jersey’s limit on large-capacity magazines.

“We must treat the right to keep and bear arms like other enumerated rights,” he wrote. “We may not water it down and balance it away based on our own sense of wise policy.”

Barrett — who until October served in Indiana on the 7th Circuit, where there is a particular culture of agreement — also followed the pattern, striking out against Democratic-named colleagues over 7% of the time and against Republican appointees 2.5% of the time, the analysis showed.

In one such case, she disagreed that a man who had admitted to killing his wife was denied the right to a lawyer when a judge questioned him. (Her position later held sway when the case was considered by a full slate of 7th Circuit judges.)

On the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Neomi Rao, confirmed to the bench just last year, has already made waves. Of four cases with published opinions that she participated in alongside two Democratic appointees, she dissented three times, the analysis showed. In June, she wrote the majority opinion ordering a lower-court judge to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser.

In a case decided in May, Judge Joel M. Carson III of the 10th Circuit dissented as his Democratic-appointed peers ruled against a challenge to the Trump administration’s ban on bump stocks, the attachments that allow semi-automatic rifles to fire in sustained bursts. That case is now under consideration by the full circuit.

And this month, Judge Lawrence J.C. VanDyke broke from his colleagues on the 9th Circuit, objecting as they ruled against the Trump administration and called an immigration policy favoring wealthy immigrants for green cards “arbitrary and capricious.” VanDyke was among the handful of Trump nominees at the appellate level whose qualifications were questioned by the American Bar Association.

Not all the judges fit the pattern: Many serve on courts with a majority of Republican appointees, and some belong to circuits with a stronger culture of consensus. But The Times found that Trump appointees were more likely to be involved in a case featuring dissent even when those factors were accounted for.

The analysis examined how often and with whom the judges agreed but not the ideological content of their opinions. Though the cases sometimes touched on big policy debates — abortion, gun rights, policing — they more often concerned matters like employment disputes and criminal and immigration court appeals.

The Trump administration’s work in swiftly filling vacant judgeships has depended heavily on Republicans in the Senate, particularly Mitch McConnell, the majority leader. He has encouraged eligible federal judges to retire to create more openings and has led a confirmation process in which Republicans shunned compromise and sought unbending conservatives and reliable political allies to populate the bench.

As of this month, if pending nominations are taken into account, President-elect Joe Biden stands to inherit fewer than 25 openings across the federal judiciary, compared with the more than 100 that carried over to Trump from Barack Obama's administration.

Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee have appealed to Lindsey Graham, its Republican chairman through the end of the year, asking him not to proceed with any more nominations before Biden is sworn in.

But even with a Democrat in the White House, the Republicans will be in a position to continue their push for conservative appointees, or at least block liberal ones, unless Democrats gain control of the Senate by winning both seats in next month’s special election in Georgia.

“A lot of what we’ve done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election,” McConnell said in October as Barrett was confirmed. “They won’t be able to do much about this for a long time to come.”

As Democrats look to the incoming Biden administration to reverse much of President Donald Trump’s work, the conservative imprint he has left on the federal courts is only deepening.

As Democrats look to the incoming Biden administration to reverse much of President Donald Trump’s work, the conservative imprint he has left on the federal courts is only deepening. Much attention in recent months has focused on the Supreme Court and its newly appointed justice, Amy Coney Barrett. But an analysis of decisions by the country’s appellate bench — where nearly all contested federal litigation ends — shows the transformation of the judiciary under Trump. Early this year, The New York Times reviewed more than 10,000 published decisions and dissents during the first three years of the Trump administration. It found that the president’s picks for the appeals courts were more likely than past Republican appointees to disagree with peers selected by Democrats and more likely to agree with their Republican colleagues, suggesting they were more consistently conservative. An updated analysis of more than 1,700 opinions published over the first six months of the year shows that the trend has intensified as the judges have established a larger body of work. “It’s more polarized,” said Joshua Fischman, a law professor at the University of Virginia. “We’ve seen a huge conservative shift. A lot of these judges are very young, and they’ll be there for a long time.” Trump has named 53 of the 165 judges on the nation’s regional appeals courts, lifetime appointments that will have a vast and enduring effect. Most cases on the courts are decided unanimously by three-person panels, and dissent is relatively rare. But as a group, his selections were nearly four times as likely to clash with colleagues appointed by Democratic presidents as those appointed by Republicans. Judges nominated by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush showed the same tendency, but to half the extent. The judges who exhibited the pattern included some who had been under consideration for the Supreme Court and some who had deep political connections on Capitol Hill. One had done legal work for Trump’s 2016 campaign and later, as acting head of the Justice Department’s civil division, was in charge of defending high-profile presidential policies that came under attack in the courts. Yet while Trump has made clear that he expects loyalty from his judicial appointees, they have ruled against him in lawsuits that his campaign brought regarding the 2020 election. Most notably, Barrett last week joined her fellow justices in denying an effort by Texas to overturn the Biden victory in four battleground states. At the appeals level, Judge Stephanos Bibas of the 3rd Circuit, nominated in 2017, wrote a blistering decision last month rejecting the Trump campaign’s election challenge in Pennsylvania. And Judge Andrew L. Brasher of the 11th Circuit, appointed this year, wrote an opinion this month rebuffing the campaign’s effort to bypass the lower federal court and decertify Georgia’s election results. Fischman said that to rule differently would have been to flout the law. “It’s completely against judicial culture,” he said. “They just could not be taken seriously as judges if they sided with Trump here.” Bibas and Brasher serve on courts that Trump has flipped toward conservative majorities. While Bibas was not among the most disputatious of the appointees, according to the analysis, he dissented in a significant gun-rights case in which two Democratic appointees upheld New Jersey’s limit on large-capacity magazines. “We must treat the right to keep and bear arms like other enumerated rights,” he wrote. “We may not water it down and balance it away based on our own sense of wise policy.” Barrett — who until October served in Indiana on the 7th Circuit, where there is a particular culture of agreement — also followed the pattern, striking out against Democratic-named colleagues over 7% of the time and against Republican appointees 2.5% of the time, the analysis showed. In one such case, she disagreed that a man who had admitted to killing his wife was denied the right to a lawyer when a judge questioned him. (Her position later held sway when the case was considered by a full slate of 7th Circuit judges.) On the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Neomi Rao, confirmed to the bench just last year, has already made waves. Of four cases with published opinions that she participated in alongside two Democratic appointees, she dissented three times, the analysis showed. In June, she wrote the majority opinion ordering a lower-court judge to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser. In a case decided in May, Judge Joel M. Carson III of the 10th Circuit dissented as his Democratic-appointed peers ruled against a challenge to the Trump administration’s ban on bump stocks, the attachments that allow semi-automatic rifles to fire in sustained bursts. That case is now under consideration by the full circuit. And this month, Judge Lawrence J.C. VanDyke broke from his colleagues on the 9th Circuit, objecting as they ruled against the Trump administration and called an immigration policy favoring wealthy immigrants for green cards “arbitrary and capricious.” VanDyke was among the handful of Trump nominees at the appellate level whose qualifications were questioned by the American Bar Association. Not all the judges fit the pattern: Many serve on courts with a majority of Republican appointees, and some belong to circuits with a stronger culture of consensus. But The Times found that Trump appointees were more likely to be involved in a case featuring dissent even when those factors were accounted for. The analysis examined how often and with whom the judges agreed but not the ideological content of their opinions. Though the cases sometimes touched on big policy debates — abortion, gun rights, policing — they more often concerned matters like employment disputes and criminal and immigration court appeals. The Trump administration’s work in swiftly filling vacant judgeships has depended heavily on Republicans in the Senate, particularly Mitch McConnell, the majority leader. He has encouraged eligible federal judges to retire to create more openings and has led a confirmation process in which Republicans shunned compromise and sought unbending conservatives and reliable political allies to populate the bench. As of this month, if pending nominations are taken into account, President-elect Joe Biden stands to inherit fewer than 25 openings across the federal judiciary, compared with the more than 100 that carried over to Trump from Barack Obama's administration. Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee have appealed to Lindsey Graham, its Republican chairman through the end of the year, asking him not to proceed with any more nominations before Biden is sworn in. But even with a Democrat in the White House, the Republicans will be in a position to continue their push for conservative appointees, or at least block liberal ones, unless Democrats gain control of the Senate by winning both seats in next month’s special election in Georgia. “A lot of what we’ve done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election,” McConnell said in October as Barrett was confirmed. “They won’t be able to do much about this for a long time to come.”

As Trump leaves the White House, his imprint on the judiciary deepens

The firm, Zhenhua Data Information Technology Co, is a pioneer in hybrid warfare and is linked to the country’s administration.

India raises Zhenhua snooping issue with Chinese envoy

In a shocking revelation, it has come to light that a Shenzhen-based company named Zhenhua Data Information Technology Co. Limited is monitoring over 10,000 Indian individuals and organisations.

Why is China tracking influential Indians?

China spy on India's leading business tycoons, veteran politicians, and more!

Iran said Saturday it condemned a former top judiciary official to 31 years in prison for corruption, one of the heaviest sentences against a former official in the Islamic republic.

Akbar Tabari received the jail term after being convicted of "setting up and heading a bribery network", judiciary spokesman Gholamhossein Esmaili told state television.

The high-profile trial of Tabari, who served in a number of senior roles in Iran's judiciary, opened in June alongside 21 other defendants.

In its ruling, Tehran's criminal court ordered Tabari to pay more than 430 billion rials ($1.65 million) in fines. It also ordered the seizure of illegally acquired properties.

Tabari was also found guilty of money-laundering, for which he was sentenced to 12 years and ordered to pay about 600 billion rials ($2.3 million), said Esmaili.

The judiciary spokesman said the verdict could still be appealed and that, based on Iran's criminal code, Tabari would have to serve only the longest of the jail terms.

Among the properties to be confiscated were four apartments in north Tehran, two business venues in the heart of the capital, and five plots of land in a popular northern tourist resort.

Tabari served as the former deputy head of administrative affairs at the judiciary.

He was later promoted to be the head of executive affairs and then executive deputy under then judiciary chief Ayatollah Sadegh Amoli Larijani from 2009 to 2019.

In March last year, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei replaced Larijani with Ebrahim Raisi, a religious conservative, and called on him to work "against corruption".

According to media reports, Raisi sacked Tabari "eight days after taking office" without providing a reason.

Tabari's arrest was confirmed by the judiciary on July 2019.

Two other suspects on trial, Farhad Mashayekh Fereydoun and Rasool Danialzadeh, received sentences of 15 years each.

Two former judges, Bijan Qasemzadeh and Hamidreza Alizadeh, were also convicted of peddling influence and receiving bribes. They were each sentenced to 10 years' jail.

Qasemzadeh is best known for ordering the blocking of Telegram, which had been the most popular messaging service in the Islamic republic at the time.

According to Esmaili, the trial is still ongoing for some of the other suspects.

The rare proceedings were broadcast live on state television and widely covered in local media.

A touch of mystery was added to the case following the unexplained death of a fugitive judge also implicated in the case.

Gholamreza Mansouri, 52, had fled Iran last year, first going to Germany and then moving to Romania.

He plunged from a top floor of his hotel in Bucharest with his death considered to be a suicide.

Mansouri was wanted over receiving a 500,000-euro ($592,000) bribe.

Iran said Saturday it condemned a former top judiciary official to 31 years in prison for corruption, one of the heaviest sentences against a former official in the Islamic republic.

Iran said Saturday it condemned a former top judiciary official to 31 years in prison for corruption, one of the heaviest sentences against a former official in the Islamic republic. Akbar Tabari received the jail term after being convicted of "setting up and heading a bribery network", judiciary spokesman Gholamhossein Esmaili told state television. The high-profile trial of Tabari, who served in a number of senior roles in Iran's judiciary, opened in June alongside 21 other defendants. In its ruling, Tehran's criminal court ordered Tabari to pay more than 430 billion rials ($1.65 million) in fines. It also ordered the seizure of illegally acquired properties. Tabari was also found guilty of money-laundering, for which he was sentenced to 12 years and ordered to pay about 600 billion rials ($2.3 million), said Esmaili. The judiciary spokesman said the verdict could still be appealed and that, based on Iran's criminal code, Tabari would have to serve only the longest of the jail terms. Among the properties to be confiscated were four apartments in north Tehran, two business venues in the heart of the capital, and five plots of land in a popular northern tourist resort. Tabari served as the former deputy head of administrative affairs at the judiciary. He was later promoted to be the head of executive affairs and then executive deputy under then judiciary chief Ayatollah Sadegh Amoli Larijani from 2009 to 2019. In March last year, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei replaced Larijani with Ebrahim Raisi, a religious conservative, and called on him to work "against corruption". According to media reports, Raisi sacked Tabari "eight days after taking office" without providing a reason. Tabari's arrest was confirmed by the judiciary on July 2019. Two other suspects on trial, Farhad Mashayekh Fereydoun and Rasool Danialzadeh, received sentences of 15 years each. Two former judges, Bijan Qasemzadeh and Hamidreza Alizadeh, were also convicted of peddling influence and receiving bribes. They were each sentenced to 10 years' jail. Qasemzadeh is best known for ordering the blocking of Telegram, which had been the most popular messaging service in the Islamic republic at the time. According to Esmaili, the trial is still ongoing for some of the other suspects. The rare proceedings were broadcast live on state television and widely covered in local media. A touch of mystery was added to the case following the unexplained death of a fugitive judge also implicated in the case. Gholamreza Mansouri, 52, had fled Iran last year, first going to Germany and then moving to Romania. He plunged from a top floor of his hotel in Bucharest with his death considered to be a suicide. Mansouri was wanted over receiving a 500,000-euro ($592,000) bribe.

Iran ex-judiciary official gets 31 years for graft

The nomination of &nbsp;former Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, &nbsp;to Rajya Sabha after three months of his retirement has sparked controversy &nbsp;and concern in the public domain. Though the onslaught of Corona pandemic has deflected the public attention from this important political development and other matters of national significance, it is important &nbsp;to &nbsp;join the debate: whether the nomination of Justice Ranjan Gogoi compromises the independence of Indian judiciary and has further led to &nbsp;the concentration of powers in the hands of Executive- which poses a threat to Indian democracy - as has &nbsp;mostly been argued by the critics of the Modi government. &nbsp;

Besides the issue of constitutional propriety, the nomination of &nbsp;Justice Gogoi has largely been seen as a case of quid pro quo/political favouritism in exchange of his series of Judgments including Ayodhya issue, Rafale case, the delay in the matter of hearing over the abolition of Article 370, Electoral Bonds etc, which appears to favour the government of the day.&nbsp;

But it seems that none of these allegations has substance. It is the matter of fact that it is the same opposition which had hailed the Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Chelameswar and others as ‘hero of democracy’ for raising their voice against the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra. ( In January 2018, Justices Gogoi, Lokur, J Chelameswar, and Kurian Joseph, the most senior judges&nbsp;in the Supreme Court, called a press conference to question the conduct of Justice Dipak Misra on the allocation of important cases)&nbsp;

It is another matter that with judgement related to decriminalisation of IPC 377 and Protection of Individual Privacy and other progressive judgments, much of the liberal-leftist critique of Justice Dipak Misra vanished in thin air.&nbsp;

Second, it is a myth that government organs work with ‘complete independence’, rather they work in harmony and cooperative framework with a larger goal of governing the country.&nbsp;

Third, whenever a strong personality has dominated Executive in India, the issue of compromising the independence of the judiciary has been raised in the public domain, though without much merit. Indian democracy has matured and moved forward amidst such allegations in the past. &nbsp;

Fourth, Indian politics is riddled with a large list of appointments of Judges including Chief Justice of the High Court and Supreme Court &nbsp;to various Commissions and nominations in Rajya Sabha. In fact, the Constitution of India provides 12 nominations of people with exceptional abilities and recognitions in the various fields into Rajya Sabha with a view to benefit the nation from their talents. I believe that  Justice Ranjan Gogoi deserves such recognition and an honourable place in &nbsp;Rajya Sabha as an independent member. It is misnomer to think that the nomination of a judge in the Parliament amounts to compromising the independence of Judiciary; rather law-making exercise is benefited from experiences of such legal luminaries. In fact, all sitting judges of Supreme Court in the United Kingdom find an automatic place in the &nbsp;House of Lords after their retirement without ever generating a controversy that such an exercise or political tradition &nbsp;cripples the independence of UK judicial system.

&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The nomination of former Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, to Rajya Sabha after three months of his retirement has sparked controversy and concern in the public domain.

The nomination of  former Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi,  to Rajya Sabha after three months of his retirement has sparked controversy  and concern in the public domain. Though the onslaught of Corona pandemic has deflected the public attention from this important political development and other matters of national significance, it is important  to  join the debate: whether the nomination of Justice Ranjan Gogoi compromises the independence of Indian judiciary and has further led to  the concentration of powers in the hands of Executive- which poses a threat to Indian democracy - as has  mostly been argued by the critics of the Modi government. Besides the issue of constitutional propriety, the nomination of  Justice Gogoi has largely been seen as a case of quid pro quo/political favouritism in exchange of his series of Judgments including Ayodhya issue, Rafale case, the delay in the matter of hearing over the abolition of Article 370, Electoral Bonds etc, which appears to favour the government of the day. But it seems that none of these allegations has substance. It is the matter of fact that it is the same opposition which had hailed the Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Chelameswar and others as ‘hero of democracy’ for raising their voice against the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra. ( In January 2018, Justices Gogoi, Lokur, J Chelameswar, and Kurian Joseph, the most senior judges in the Supreme Court, called a press conference to question the conduct of Justice Dipak Misra on the allocation of important cases) It is another matter that with judgement related to decriminalisation of IPC 377 and Protection of Individual Privacy and other progressive judgments, much of the liberal-leftist critique of Justice Dipak Misra vanished in thin air. Second, it is a myth that government organs work with ‘complete independence’, rather they work in harmony and cooperative framework with a larger goal of governing the country. Third, whenever a strong personality has dominated Executive in India, the issue of compromising the independence of the judiciary has been raised in the public domain, though without much merit. Indian democracy has matured and moved forward amidst such allegations in the past. Fourth, Indian politics is riddled with a large list of appointments of Judges including Chief Justice of the High Court and Supreme Court  to various Commissions and nominations in Rajya Sabha. In fact, the Constitution of India provides 12 nominations of people with exceptional abilities and recognitions in the various fields into Rajya Sabha with a view to benefit the nation from their talents. I believe that  Justice Ranjan Gogoi deserves such recognition and an honourable place in  Rajya Sabha as an independent member. It is misnomer to think that the nomination of a judge in the Parliament amounts to compromising the independence of Judiciary; rather law-making exercise is benefited from experiences of such legal luminaries. In fact, all sitting judges of Supreme Court in the United Kingdom find an automatic place in the  House of Lords after their retirement without ever generating a controversy that such an exercise or political tradition  cripples the independence of UK judicial system. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Nothing political about Justice Ranjan Gogoi's nomination to Rajya Sabha

Judges manning the courts are custodians of the justice-delivery system. This system thrives and survives on public trust. For this reason, disputes engaging complex political, religious, and ethical dimensions find a quietus in courts. The most visible example in recent times was the settlement of the Ayodhya land dispute which brokered peace between two religious communities in India vying for a common piece of land. &nbsp;

This verdict was given by a bench of five judges on November 9, 2019. The then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi presided over the bench. This verdict bought peace between the Hindu and Muslim communities. The disputed area went to the majority Hindus while the minority Muslims got an alternate land of five acres. The nation was on the boil as the ruling party at the Centre – the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) had made it their poll plank to construct a temple at this very site dedicated to Lord Ram, one of the Hindu Gods. The Court unanimously held the land to be Lord Ram’s birthplace. A mosque at this site had been brought down by Hindu karsevaks on December 6, 1992. Despite the heartburn, the verdict witnessed no communal backlash.&nbsp;

Four months later, former CJI Gogoi, one of the architects of the Ayodhya verdict, has been nominated by Indian President Ram Nath Kovind as a Member of Rajya Sabha. The choice of the President is governed by the ruling political dispensation at the Centre. In this case, it is the BJP which benefitted the most from the Ayodhya verdict. Also, Gogoi was part of the bench that gave a clean chit to the same BJP government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a multi-million dollar defence purchase deal. The clamour is growing for the ex-CJI to reject the offer. But Gogoi has decided to take oath. &nbsp;

Gogoi knows that judges in the past, even CJIs, entered Parliament and accepted government posts. If Gogoi chooses to walk the beaten track, there is a disturbing history that should dissuade him from doing so.&nbsp;

Justice (Retd) Bahrul Islam, served at the Supreme Court from 1980 to 1983. Six weeks remaining for his retirement, he resigned and got Congress ticket to Lok Sabha from Barpeta (Assam). A month before his resignation, he absolved chief minister of Bihar, Jagannath Mishra, a tall Congress leader, in a case of forgery and criminal misconduct. &nbsp;

Justice (Retd) Ranga Nath Mishra retired as CJI in 1991. In 1984, he headed a judicial commission to probe allegations whether the Delhi Sikh riots was orchestrated by the ruling Congress party and its leaders. The riots were in the aftermath of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination. Mishra’s report blamed the police but absolved the Congress party of any complicity. &nbsp;

Within two years of his retirement, he became Chairman of India’s apex human rights body in October 1993. In 1998, Congress Party nominated him to the Rajya Sabha.&nbsp;

A similar charge of quid pro quo was levelled against former CJI P Sathasivam. Soon after his retirement in April 2014, he became Governor of Kerala. A year ago, he favoured Amit Shah, the present Union Home Minister, who then faced a fake encounter case as the Home Minister of Gujarat. Sathasivam presided a bench that closed probe against Shah in the alleged fake encounter killing of one Tulsiram Prajapati. The judge responded to the criticism claiming any judge in his position would have ruled the same.&nbsp;

There are other precedents too of judges accepting government posts. Judges after retirement are faced with a strong lure for political and constitutional offices. Many judges have hobnobbed with governments of the day for such posts. While nothing in law prevents judges from becoming Members of Parliament, it unnecessarily makes their decisions suspicious. This shakes public faith in judicial independence and casts doubts over their integrity. In England, there exists a bar upon retired judges to join the House of Commons. In India, this discretion is left to the judges. We do not need to control our judges. 
 
Their independence and impartiality have remained the hallmarks of their decision-making that has stood the test of time. For this reason, even the Constitution makers did not think it necessary to bar judges from holding post-retirement executive posts. But the time seems to be ripe for a rethink. After all, the judiciary is the last bastion for citizens to expect justice. And if public trust faulters, it will be hard for the judiciary to restore its institutional integrity. &nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Judges manning the courts are custodians of the justice-delivery system. This system thrives and survives on public trust. For this reason, disputes engaging complex political, religious, and ethical dimensions find a quietus in courts.

Judges manning the courts are custodians of the justice-delivery system. This system thrives and survives on public trust. For this reason, disputes engaging complex political, religious, and ethical dimensions find a quietus in courts. The most visible example in recent times was the settlement of the Ayodhya land dispute which brokered peace between two religious communities in India vying for a common piece of land. This verdict was given by a bench of five judges on November 9, 2019. The then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi presided over the bench. This verdict bought peace between the Hindu and Muslim communities. The disputed area went to the majority Hindus while the minority Muslims got an alternate land of five acres. The nation was on the boil as the ruling party at the Centre – the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) had made it their poll plank to construct a temple at this very site dedicated to Lord Ram, one of the Hindu Gods. The Court unanimously held the land to be Lord Ram’s birthplace. A mosque at this site had been brought down by Hindu karsevaks on December 6, 1992. Despite the heartburn, the verdict witnessed no communal backlash. Four months later, former CJI Gogoi, one of the architects of the Ayodhya verdict, has been nominated by Indian President Ram Nath Kovind as a Member of Rajya Sabha. The choice of the President is governed by the ruling political dispensation at the Centre. In this case, it is the BJP which benefitted the most from the Ayodhya verdict. Also, Gogoi was part of the bench that gave a clean chit to the same BJP government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a multi-million dollar defence purchase deal. The clamour is growing for the ex-CJI to reject the offer. But Gogoi has decided to take oath. Gogoi knows that judges in the past, even CJIs, entered Parliament and accepted government posts. If Gogoi chooses to walk the beaten track, there is a disturbing history that should dissuade him from doing so. Justice (Retd) Bahrul Islam, served at the Supreme Court from 1980 to 1983. Six weeks remaining for his retirement, he resigned and got Congress ticket to Lok Sabha from Barpeta (Assam). A month before his resignation, he absolved chief minister of Bihar, Jagannath Mishra, a tall Congress leader, in a case of forgery and criminal misconduct. Justice (Retd) Ranga Nath Mishra retired as CJI in 1991. In 1984, he headed a judicial commission to probe allegations whether the Delhi Sikh riots was orchestrated by the ruling Congress party and its leaders. The riots were in the aftermath of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination. Mishra’s report blamed the police but absolved the Congress party of any complicity. Within two years of his retirement, he became Chairman of India’s apex human rights body in October 1993. In 1998, Congress Party nominated him to the Rajya Sabha. A similar charge of quid pro quo was levelled against former CJI P Sathasivam. Soon after his retirement in April 2014, he became Governor of Kerala. A year ago, he favoured Amit Shah, the present Union Home Minister, who then faced a fake encounter case as the Home Minister of Gujarat. Sathasivam presided a bench that closed probe against Shah in the alleged fake encounter killing of one Tulsiram Prajapati. The judge responded to the criticism claiming any judge in his position would have ruled the same. There are other precedents too of judges accepting government posts. Judges after retirement are faced with a strong lure for political and constitutional offices. Many judges have hobnobbed with governments of the day for such posts. While nothing in law prevents judges from becoming Members of Parliament, it unnecessarily makes their decisions suspicious. This shakes public faith in judicial independence and casts doubts over their integrity. In England, there exists a bar upon retired judges to join the House of Commons. In India, this discretion is left to the judges. We do not need to control our judges. Their independence and impartiality have remained the hallmarks of their decision-making that has stood the test of time. For this reason, even the Constitution makers did not think it necessary to bar judges from holding post-retirement executive posts. But the time seems to be ripe for a rethink. After all, the judiciary is the last bastion for citizens to expect justice. And if public trust faulters, it will be hard for the judiciary to restore its institutional integrity. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Post-retirement jobs: Judiciary’s bane

Country's apex court - the Supreme Court of India pronounced a series of landmark judgments in 2019, which not only will remain embedded in history but also in our minds in times to come.

Many of these verdicts were passed during the tenure of former chief justice of India Ranjan Gogoi's who also brought an end to, inarguably one of the most talked-about court cases in the history of India - Ayodhya Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.

As the year draws to a close, let's have a look at the court verdict that gripped nation's attention through this year.

Ayodhya verdict

In November, the country waited with bated breath to know whether the disputed site in Uttar Pradesh's Ayodhya, belonged to Hindus or Muslims. As the day inched closers, prohibitory orders were imposed in different parts of the country as people stayed glued to their TV sets and social media sites to know all details of the verdict in real-time.

On November 9, a five-judge bench of the apex court unanimously ruled in favour of Ram Lalla and handed over the entire disputed land which was spread over 2.7 acres to a trust, which would be formed by the government. The trust is now tasked to monitor the construction of a temple at the site.

Calling the demolition of Babri Masjid an "egregious violation of the rule of law", the top court gave alternative five acres of land for the construction of a mosque at a prominent location in the same city. Not happy with the allotment of a separate land, a batch of petitions were filed against the judgment which was all later dismissed.

Rafale verdict

Rafale jet fighter deal not only remained a discussed topic in the defence circle but also made its way to the electoral battle before the issue was settled by the top court orders.

A three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph dismissed a batch of review petitions filed against the court's December 14, 2018 verdict which had upheld purchase of 36 Rafale jets by Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government from France. The petitioners had sought registration of FIR and CBI probe into their complaint against Rafale purchase.

In 2018, the court had dismissed petitions seeking court-monitored probe into alleged irregularities in the procurement of jets. The court also said that it was not their job to go into the issue of pricing of the fighter planes.

On the outset, the bench also closed a contempt petition filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for wrongly attributing his "chowkidar chor hai" slogan against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Rafale case to the top court.

Sabarimala case

In a 3:2 split verdict, the Supreme Court referred to a larger constitution bench a batch of review petitions against its September 2018 verdict allowing entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple.

The 2018 judgement of the court had sparked a series of protest across the state. This had lead to the filing of petitions seeking review of the top court's order. The petitions challenged the authority of the court to intervene in a belief of the people.

The review plea which was allowed by the court and will be heard in the time to come also argued that the Sabarimala deity is a "Brahmachari" [celibate] and "centuries-old beliefs" should not be disturbed by the entry of menstruating women worshippers. Now, it is to be seen what the seven-judge bench rules in the matter.

Dismissal of Nirbhaya rapist's review petition

One of the death-row convicts in the Nirbhaya rape case, Akshay Kumar Singh, availed one of his legal remedies and moved the Supreme Court seeking review of its order which had convicted him and three others in the case.

Nirbhaya's mother also moved an application opposing his petition and at the same time pressing that they be hanged soon.

Giving relief to her, the top court rejected Akshay's petition. The review petition of the other three convicts was already rejected by the court last year. Now, the convicts who are facing the gallows will file curative and mercy petitions as a last resort. They are raped and murdered a 23-year-old girl in a moving bus in December 2012. The case shook the conscience of the entire nation and also helped in shaping the rape laws.

Chief Justice of India under Right to Information

In an unusual case, the Supreme Court approached itself as one of the litigants. The case in question was whether the office of Chief Justice of India comes under the ambit of Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

The issue arose from an appeal filed by the secretary-general and central public information officer of the apex court against the January 2010 judgment of the Delhi High Court which declared the CJI's office a "public authority" under the RTI Act.

Observing that transparency strengthens judicial independence, the Supreme Court last month ruled that the Chief Justice of India's Office is a "public authority" and comes under the ambit of RTI Act. It, however, contended that the Act cannot be used as a means of surveillance.

Maharashtra government formation

The government formed by BJP's Devendra Fadnavis and NCP's Ajit Pawar came crumbing down after the Supreme Court ordered for a floor test to be conducted.

Observing that there is a possibility of horse-trading if the floor test is delayed, the court ordered it to be conducted through an open ballot and be telecasted live to determine the strength of the BJP-led Maharashtra government.

Within hours, Fadnavis resigned from the post of chief minister thus paving a way for Congress, NCP and Shiv Sena to form the government.

Sexual harassment charges against Ranjan Gogoi

The Supreme Court's in-house committee gave a clean chit to former CJI Ranjan Gogoi after allegations of sexual harassment were levelled against him by a former woman staffer earlier this year.

Feeling dejected, the woman said that she is on the verge of losing faith in the idea of justice. The clean chit was given to the CJI also received widespread criticism after the report of the committee was not made public.

Maradu flat demolition

The Supreme Court in May this year ordered the Kerala government to demolish four high-rise buildings in Maradu area of Kerala's Kochi city for violation of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) rules. As many as four hundred flats are set to be razed down by a controlled explosion on January 11 and 12 next year.

The apex court also ordered the state government to give interim compensation of Rs 25 lakh to the disgruntled flat owners.

P Chidambaram bail petition&nbsp;

Former finance minister P Chidambaram, who was put under lock and key in a matter pertaining to a Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media during his tenure in 2007, sought bail from the Supreme Court.

Chidambaram was lodged in Tihar Jail in both corruption and money laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), respectively. The bail plea was allowed by the Supreme Court in both cases.

The court observed that he was not a flight risk and that there was no possibility of him tampering with the evidence.

Reservation to Maratha community

The Supreme Court refused to stay the judgment passed by Bombay High Court and upheld the reservation given to the Maratha community in educational institutions and government jobs.

The order had come days after the Bombay High Court directed to cap the reservation for the community at 12 per cent for admission in educational institutions and 13 per cent for government jobs.

Cancellation of Amrapali's RERA registration

In a major relief to the disgruntled homebuyers, the top court cancelled Amrapali's Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act registration. The court directed the National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC) to complete the unfinished housing projects of Amrapali in Noida and Greater Noida areas and handover them to the homebuyers as soon as possible.

The bench also directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to conduct a detailed investigation against the group for diverting homebuyers' money.

Jammu and Kashmir Habeas Corpus petition

After the special status of Jammu and Kashmir was abrogated and various politicians were put under detention, CPI-M general secretary Sitaram Yechury approached the court challenging the detention of his party leader Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami.

He moved a Habeas Corpus petition which seeks the person under arrest to be brought before a court, especially to secure their release.

The Supreme Court then allowed Yechury to meet his friend in Srinagar and filed an affidavit. On its basis, Tarigami was shifted to All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) for treatment. In another case, the court refused to pass any order on Habeas Corpus petition seeking production of former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Farooq Abdullah, who is under detention, before it.

Dilution of SC/ST Act

The Supreme Court allowed Centre's petition seeking review of the court's earlier judgment which had diluted the stringent provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Centre had sought review of judgment which stated that there will be no automatic arrest on a complaint filed under the Act and arrest of public servants can only be made after approval of the appointing authority and of a non-public servant after approval by the SSP.

Karnataka MLA disqualification

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of former Karnataka Speaker KR Ramesh Kumar to disqualify 17 rebel Congress-JDS MLAs under the anti-defection law and allowed them to contest the by-elections in the state.

The verdict cleared the air around the relation between resignation and disqualification of a legislator. The rebel legislators were disqualified after they tendered their resignation. The move had led to the fall of the Congress-JD (S) coalition government, paving way for BJP to stake claim to form a new government in the state.&nbsp;

Country's apex court - the Supreme Court of India pronounced a series of landmark judgments in 2019, which not only will remain embedded in history but also in our minds in times to come.

Country's apex court - the Supreme Court of India pronounced a series of landmark judgments in 2019, which not only will remain embedded in history but also in our minds in times to come. Many of these verdicts were passed during the tenure of former chief justice of India Ranjan Gogoi's who also brought an end to, inarguably one of the most talked-about court cases in the history of India - Ayodhya Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. As the year draws to a close, let's have a look at the court verdict that gripped nation's attention through this year. Ayodhya verdict In November, the country waited with bated breath to know whether the disputed site in Uttar Pradesh's Ayodhya, belonged to Hindus or Muslims. As the day inched closers, prohibitory orders were imposed in different parts of the country as people stayed glued to their TV sets and social media sites to know all details of the verdict in real-time. On November 9, a five-judge bench of the apex court unanimously ruled in favour of Ram Lalla and handed over the entire disputed land which was spread over 2.7 acres to a trust, which would be formed by the government. The trust is now tasked to monitor the construction of a temple at the site. Calling the demolition of Babri Masjid an "egregious violation of the rule of law", the top court gave alternative five acres of land for the construction of a mosque at a prominent location in the same city. Not happy with the allotment of a separate land, a batch of petitions were filed against the judgment which was all later dismissed. Rafale verdict Rafale jet fighter deal not only remained a discussed topic in the defence circle but also made its way to the electoral battle before the issue was settled by the top court orders. A three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph dismissed a batch of review petitions filed against the court's December 14, 2018 verdict which had upheld purchase of 36 Rafale jets by Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government from France. The petitioners had sought registration of FIR and CBI probe into their complaint against Rafale purchase. In 2018, the court had dismissed petitions seeking court-monitored probe into alleged irregularities in the procurement of jets. The court also said that it was not their job to go into the issue of pricing of the fighter planes. On the outset, the bench also closed a contempt petition filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for wrongly attributing his "chowkidar chor hai" slogan against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Rafale case to the top court. Sabarimala case In a 3:2 split verdict, the Supreme Court referred to a larger constitution bench a batch of review petitions against its September 2018 verdict allowing entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple. The 2018 judgement of the court had sparked a series of protest across the state. This had lead to the filing of petitions seeking review of the top court's order. The petitions challenged the authority of the court to intervene in a belief of the people. The review plea which was allowed by the court and will be heard in the time to come also argued that the Sabarimala deity is a "Brahmachari" [celibate] and "centuries-old beliefs" should not be disturbed by the entry of menstruating women worshippers. Now, it is to be seen what the seven-judge bench rules in the matter. Dismissal of Nirbhaya rapist's review petition One of the death-row convicts in the Nirbhaya rape case, Akshay Kumar Singh, availed one of his legal remedies and moved the Supreme Court seeking review of its order which had convicted him and three others in the case. Nirbhaya's mother also moved an application opposing his petition and at the same time pressing that they be hanged soon. Giving relief to her, the top court rejected Akshay's petition. The review petition of the other three convicts was already rejected by the court last year. Now, the convicts who are facing the gallows will file curative and mercy petitions as a last resort. They are raped and murdered a 23-year-old girl in a moving bus in December 2012. The case shook the conscience of the entire nation and also helped in shaping the rape laws. Chief Justice of India under Right to Information In an unusual case, the Supreme Court approached itself as one of the litigants. The case in question was whether the office of Chief Justice of India comes under the ambit of Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The issue arose from an appeal filed by the secretary-general and central public information officer of the apex court against the January 2010 judgment of the Delhi High Court which declared the CJI's office a "public authority" under the RTI Act. Observing that transparency strengthens judicial independence, the Supreme Court last month ruled that the Chief Justice of India's Office is a "public authority" and comes under the ambit of RTI Act. It, however, contended that the Act cannot be used as a means of surveillance. Maharashtra government formation The government formed by BJP's Devendra Fadnavis and NCP's Ajit Pawar came crumbing down after the Supreme Court ordered for a floor test to be conducted. Observing that there is a possibility of horse-trading if the floor test is delayed, the court ordered it to be conducted through an open ballot and be telecasted live to determine the strength of the BJP-led Maharashtra government. Within hours, Fadnavis resigned from the post of chief minister thus paving a way for Congress, NCP and Shiv Sena to form the government. Sexual harassment charges against Ranjan Gogoi The Supreme Court's in-house committee gave a clean chit to former CJI Ranjan Gogoi after allegations of sexual harassment were levelled against him by a former woman staffer earlier this year. Feeling dejected, the woman said that she is on the verge of losing faith in the idea of justice. The clean chit was given to the CJI also received widespread criticism after the report of the committee was not made public. Maradu flat demolition The Supreme Court in May this year ordered the Kerala government to demolish four high-rise buildings in Maradu area of Kerala's Kochi city for violation of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) rules. As many as four hundred flats are set to be razed down by a controlled explosion on January 11 and 12 next year. The apex court also ordered the state government to give interim compensation of Rs 25 lakh to the disgruntled flat owners. P Chidambaram bail petition Former finance minister P Chidambaram, who was put under lock and key in a matter pertaining to a Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media during his tenure in 2007, sought bail from the Supreme Court. Chidambaram was lodged in Tihar Jail in both corruption and money laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), respectively. The bail plea was allowed by the Supreme Court in both cases. The court observed that he was not a flight risk and that there was no possibility of him tampering with the evidence. Reservation to Maratha community The Supreme Court refused to stay the judgment passed by Bombay High Court and upheld the reservation given to the Maratha community in educational institutions and government jobs. The order had come days after the Bombay High Court directed to cap the reservation for the community at 12 per cent for admission in educational institutions and 13 per cent for government jobs. Cancellation of Amrapali's RERA registration In a major relief to the disgruntled homebuyers, the top court cancelled Amrapali's Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act registration. The court directed the National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC) to complete the unfinished housing projects of Amrapali in Noida and Greater Noida areas and handover them to the homebuyers as soon as possible. The bench also directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to conduct a detailed investigation against the group for diverting homebuyers' money. Jammu and Kashmir Habeas Corpus petition After the special status of Jammu and Kashmir was abrogated and various politicians were put under detention, CPI-M general secretary Sitaram Yechury approached the court challenging the detention of his party leader Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami. He moved a Habeas Corpus petition which seeks the person under arrest to be brought before a court, especially to secure their release. The Supreme Court then allowed Yechury to meet his friend in Srinagar and filed an affidavit. On its basis, Tarigami was shifted to All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) for treatment. In another case, the court refused to pass any order on Habeas Corpus petition seeking production of former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Farooq Abdullah, who is under detention, before it. Dilution of SC/ST Act The Supreme Court allowed Centre's petition seeking review of the court's earlier judgment which had diluted the stringent provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Centre had sought review of judgment which stated that there will be no automatic arrest on a complaint filed under the Act and arrest of public servants can only be made after approval of the appointing authority and of a non-public servant after approval by the SSP. Karnataka MLA disqualification The Supreme Court upheld the decision of former Karnataka Speaker KR Ramesh Kumar to disqualify 17 rebel Congress-JDS MLAs under the anti-defection law and allowed them to contest the by-elections in the state. The verdict cleared the air around the relation between resignation and disqualification of a legislator. The rebel legislators were disqualified after they tendered their resignation. The move had led to the fall of the Congress-JD (S) coalition government, paving way for BJP to stake claim to form a new government in the state.

From the corridors of judiciary: Supreme Court verdicts that held nation's attention in 2019

An Alaska law promoting fossil fuel development infringes on the constitutional rights of young residents to a healthy environment, a lawyer told Alaska Supreme Court justices on Wednesday.

Alaska Supreme Court hears climate change lawsuit

Expressing concern over the incidents of judiciary stepping into the executive domain, Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad on Thursday sought the creation of an "in-house corrective mechanism" for judicial accountability.

"I am seeing a new trend happening. Some judges, two days before their retirement, give judgement of the questionable legal validity and sit on television for three days to justify it. I don`t think it is fair. The way PIL has been detained in some states, it seems as if they are parallel to the state government`s governance," he said speaking at the Independence Day celebrations organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).

Calling in-house a corrective mechanism, the Law Minister said that the role of the judiciary today has become a matter of trust for the country.&nbsp;

"It is equally important that in-house corrective mechanism must exist with the Supreme Court at the apex to ensure discipline, propriety and in some way judicial accountability," he added.

Prasad highlighted that several crores of rupees were allocated for the judicial infrastructure in the last five years of the Modi government.

"As far as the government is concerned, our job is to provide infrastructure. The government, centre or state should have no business in interfering as far as the adjudication process of the judiciary is concerned. That`s entirely the domain of the judiciary. We need to respect that," he said.

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, who was also present there on the occasion, in a veiled attack at some judges said that the judiciary has witnessed a surge in instances of "indecorous acts".

"Indian judiciary has, since some time past, witnessed an unprecedented rise in instances of indecorous acts which don`t align with the charter of our institution. Such instances of inappropriate behaviour have raised their ugly head in all courts, including the Supreme Court," he said.

Calling for urgent steps to end immoral behaviour, Gogoi said that stakeholders must quickly identify, isolate such animals and put them to quarantine.

"Graceful, pleasing and pleasant discourses and deliberations are increasingly being replaced by loud and motivated conduct. It is important that stakeholders quickly identify and isolate such animals and put them to quarantine," he added.

"It is time for all of us to introspect and redraw the lines that ought to bind each of the stakeholders to ensure that decorum and dignity of this great institution is not lost so that the meritorious enjoy space and are able to contribute to the good of the institution and steer it to new standards of excellence," CJI Gogoi said.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Expressing concern over the incidents of judiciary stepping into the executive domain, Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad on Thursday sought the creation of an "in-house corrective mechanism" for judicial accountability.

Expressing concern over the incidents of judiciary stepping into the executive domain, Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad on Thursday sought the creation of an "in-house corrective mechanism" for judicial accountability. "I am seeing a new trend happening. Some judges, two days before their retirement, give judgement of the questionable legal validity and sit on television for three days to justify it. I don`t think it is fair. The way PIL has been detained in some states, it seems as if they are parallel to the state government`s governance," he said speaking at the Independence Day celebrations organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). Calling in-house a corrective mechanism, the Law Minister said that the role of the judiciary today has become a matter of trust for the country. "It is equally important that in-house corrective mechanism must exist with the Supreme Court at the apex to ensure discipline, propriety and in some way judicial accountability," he added. Prasad highlighted that several crores of rupees were allocated for the judicial infrastructure in the last five years of the Modi government. "As far as the government is concerned, our job is to provide infrastructure. The government, centre or state should have no business in interfering as far as the adjudication process of the judiciary is concerned. That`s entirely the domain of the judiciary. We need to respect that," he said. Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, who was also present there on the occasion, in a veiled attack at some judges said that the judiciary has witnessed a surge in instances of "indecorous acts". "Indian judiciary has, since some time past, witnessed an unprecedented rise in instances of indecorous acts which don`t align with the charter of our institution. Such instances of inappropriate behaviour have raised their ugly head in all courts, including the Supreme Court," he said. Calling for urgent steps to end immoral behaviour, Gogoi said that stakeholders must quickly identify, isolate such animals and put them to quarantine. "Graceful, pleasing and pleasant discourses and deliberations are increasingly being replaced by loud and motivated conduct. It is important that stakeholders quickly identify and isolate such animals and put them to quarantine," he added. "It is time for all of us to introspect and redraw the lines that ought to bind each of the stakeholders to ensure that decorum and dignity of this great institution is not lost so that the meritorious enjoy space and are able to contribute to the good of the institution and steer it to new standards of excellence," CJI Gogoi said.

Ravi Shankar Prasad seeks in-house corrective mechanism for judicial accountability

The Centre has not been delaying the appointment of judges in higher judiciary and delay, if any, was at the collegium end, the Supreme Court said Friday.

The apex court was hearing a PIL filed by NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) which has alleged that the Centre has been "indefinitely sitting" on the names recommended by the Supreme Court collegium for appointment of judges in the higher judiciary.

"Appointments are happening. As the Chief Justice, I am telling you that whatever is pending is pending before the Supreme Court collegium. Nothing is pending with the government," a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna said.

Most of the recommendations with regard to appointment of judges in high courts were pending with the collegium headed by the CJI, it said.&nbsp;

"There are about 27 recommendations pending before the government and there are 70 to 80 pending before the Collegium, as the CJI, I am telling you," the CJI said.

Bhushan, however, said that as per his knowledge, there were several recommendations pending with the government despite the reiteration by the Collegium.

The apex court refused to pass any directions for the time being and ordered listing of the PIL for hearing after six weeks.&nbsp;

"Having heard Prashant Bhushan, counsel appearing for the petitioner, we are of the view that the matter should await orders of the court at a later point of time. List the matter after six weeks," the bench said in its order.

Earlier, the apex court, on November 2, last year, had said that it would hear after eight weeks the PIL which alleged that the Centre has been "indefinitely sitting" on the names recommended by the apex court collegium for appointment of judges in the higher judiciary.

The court had not issued the notice to the Centre on the PIL.

The plea said that the government cannot "frustrate" the process of appointment of judges in the apex court and high courts in "an oblique way" by sitting on collegium's recommendations and not responding to names reiterated by it.

The petitioner has claimed that "stone-walling" of judicial appointments by the executive for "oblique and vested interests" amounts to interference in the due process of law and the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

The plea has sought a direction to the Centre to notify the appointment of judges for the apex court and different high courts whose names have already been unanimously reiterated by the collegium and are pending with the government.

It has also sought a direction to the government to notify the recommendations for appointments of judges to various high court that have been sent by the collegium and the Centre has not responded even though six weeks have passed since the recommendations were received.

"An independent and transparent system of judicial appointments that is free from political and partisan considerations has an important bearing on the independence and impartiality of the judges," the plea has said.

The petitioner has also alleged that important constitutional positions cannot be left vacant merely because of "inaction" of the government and its "politically motivated interference in the judicial appointment process".

It has claimed that such an act not only shows "complete disregard" of the law declared by the top court but "also a virtual breakdown of the consultative process thereby diminishing if not destroying the primacy of the Chief Justice of India with regard to appointment in the manner laid down in the judgement".

Referring to the July 1 this year official figure available on the website of the Ministry of Law and Justice, the plea has said that strength of judges across high courts is 668 against the sanctioned strength of 1,079 judges.&nbsp;

The Centre has not been delaying the appointment of judges in higher judiciary and delay, if any, was at the collegium end, the Supreme Court said Friday. The apex court was hearing a PIL filed by NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) which has alleged that the Centre has been "indefinitely sitting" on the names recommended by the Supreme Court collegium for appointment of judges in the higher judiciary.

The Centre has not been delaying the appointment of judges in higher judiciary and delay, if any, was at the collegium end, the Supreme Court said Friday. The apex court was hearing a PIL filed by NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) which has alleged that the Centre has been "indefinitely sitting" on the names recommended by the Supreme Court collegium for appointment of judges in the higher judiciary. "Appointments are happening. As the Chief Justice, I am telling you that whatever is pending is pending before the Supreme Court collegium. Nothing is pending with the government," a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna said. Most of the recommendations with regard to appointment of judges in high courts were pending with the collegium headed by the CJI, it said. "There are about 27 recommendations pending before the government and there are 70 to 80 pending before the Collegium, as the CJI, I am telling you," the CJI said. Bhushan, however, said that as per his knowledge, there were several recommendations pending with the government despite the reiteration by the Collegium. The apex court refused to pass any directions for the time being and ordered listing of the PIL for hearing after six weeks. "Having heard Prashant Bhushan, counsel appearing for the petitioner, we are of the view that the matter should await orders of the court at a later point of time. List the matter after six weeks," the bench said in its order. Earlier, the apex court, on November 2, last year, had said that it would hear after eight weeks the PIL which alleged that the Centre has been "indefinitely sitting" on the names recommended by the apex court collegium for appointment of judges in the higher judiciary. The court had not issued the notice to the Centre on the PIL. The plea said that the government cannot "frustrate" the process of appointment of judges in the apex court and high courts in "an oblique way" by sitting on collegium's recommendations and not responding to names reiterated by it. The petitioner has claimed that "stone-walling" of judicial appointments by the executive for "oblique and vested interests" amounts to interference in the due process of law and the independence and integrity of the judiciary. The plea has sought a direction to the Centre to notify the appointment of judges for the apex court and different high courts whose names have already been unanimously reiterated by the collegium and are pending with the government. It has also sought a direction to the government to notify the recommendations for appointments of judges to various high court that have been sent by the collegium and the Centre has not responded even though six weeks have passed since the recommendations were received. "An independent and transparent system of judicial appointments that is free from political and partisan considerations has an important bearing on the independence and impartiality of the judges," the plea has said. The petitioner has also alleged that important constitutional positions cannot be left vacant merely because of "inaction" of the government and its "politically motivated interference in the judicial appointment process". It has claimed that such an act not only shows "complete disregard" of the law declared by the top court but "also a virtual breakdown of the consultative process thereby diminishing if not destroying the primacy of the Chief Justice of India with regard to appointment in the manner laid down in the judgement". Referring to the July 1 this year official figure available on the website of the Ministry of Law and Justice, the plea has said that strength of judges across high courts is 668 against the sanctioned strength of 1,079 judges.

Centre not delaying appointment of judges in higher judiciary: Supreme Court

Prime Minister Narendra <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/on-sonia-gandhis-home-turf-pm-says-cong-upset-there-is-no-quatrocchi-mama-in-bjps-defence-deals-184507">Modi repeated his allegation</a> Sunday that the Congress was putting pressure on the judiciary. "In such a situation," he said, "it's essential to alert the nation and young generation."&nbsp;

Modi was speaking at Prayagraj (Allahabad).&nbsp;

"Prayagraj is a place which can also be called 'the temple of justice' in Uttar Pradesh. In the recent times, the game of building pressure on the judiciary has started. In such a situation, it's essential to alert the nation and young generation," Modi said.&nbsp;

"Their actions, their conspiracies are proving it again and again that they (Congress) consider themselves above country, democracy, judiciary and public," Modi added. "Two days ago, we saw another example of it (#Rafale). Stay alert and safe from such people and parties."&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WATCH?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WATCH</a>: PM Modi says in Prayagraj, "their actions &amp; conspiracies are proving it again &amp; again that they (Congress) consider themselves above country, democracy, judiciary &amp; public. 2 days ago, we saw another example of it (<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Rafale?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Rafale</a>). Stay alert &amp; safe from such people &amp; parties <a href="https://t.co/I0MdCHSVC3">pic.twitter.com/I0MdCHSVC3</a>
— ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANINewsUP/status/1074266216519233538?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 16, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Supreme Court this week said that the new Rafale deal signed by Prime Minister Modi and the french government <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-probe-needed-in-rafale-fighter-jet-deal-rules-supreme-court-183957">did not need to be probed</a>.&nbsp;

Modi has said before this that the Congress has tried to put pressure on judges who had tried to hear the Ayodhya (Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi) cases. He was at the time referring to the petition by the opposition to impeach former chief justice of India Dipak Misra. The petition was returned by Vice President Venkaiah Naidu who is also chairperson of the Rajya Sabha.&nbsp;

Modi added on Sunday that the Congress had "destroyed every agency that didn’t work according to them".&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
WATCH PM Narendra Modi in Prayagraj: The party that has ruled the nation for the longest duration of time has always considered itself above law, judiciary, every agency &amp; even above the nation. This party destroyed every agency that didn’t work according to them. <a href="https://t.co/P1M1YQWYRX">pic.twitter.com/P1M1YQWYRX</a>
— ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANINewsUP/status/1074264980546052098?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 16, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The charge that the judiciary is being pressured (in the Sabarimala and Ayodhya cases) and that the country's institutions are being undermined (because of recent developments at the RBI and the CBI) has also been made against the BJP in recent times.&nbsp;

Prime Minister Narendra Modi repeated his allegation Sunday that the Congress was putting pressure on the judiciary. "In such a situation," he said, "it's essential to alert the nation and young generation.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi repeated his allegation Sunday that the Congress was putting pressure on the judiciary. "In such a situation," he said, "it's essential to alert the nation and young generation." Modi was speaking at Prayagraj (Allahabad). "Prayagraj is a place which can also be called 'the temple of justice' in Uttar Pradesh. In the recent times, the game of building pressure on the judiciary has started. In such a situation, it's essential to alert the nation and young generation," Modi said. "Their actions, their conspiracies are proving it again and again that they (Congress) consider themselves above country, democracy, judiciary and public," Modi added. "Two days ago, we saw another example of it (#Rafale). Stay alert and safe from such people and parties." #WATCH: PM Modi says in Prayagraj, "their actions & conspiracies are proving it again & again that they (Congress) consider themselves above country, democracy, judiciary & public. 2 days ago, we saw another example of it (#Rafale). Stay alert & safe from such people & parties pic.twitter.com/I0MdCHSVC3 — ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) December 16, 2018 × The Supreme Court this week said that the new Rafale deal signed by Prime Minister Modi and the french government did not need to be probed. Modi has said before this that the Congress has tried to put pressure on judges who had tried to hear the Ayodhya (Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi) cases. He was at the time referring to the petition by the opposition to impeach former chief justice of India Dipak Misra. The petition was returned by Vice President Venkaiah Naidu who is also chairperson of the Rajya Sabha. Modi added on Sunday that the Congress had "destroyed every agency that didn’t work according to them". WATCH PM Narendra Modi in Prayagraj: The party that has ruled the nation for the longest duration of time has always considered itself above law, judiciary, every agency & even above the nation. This party destroyed every agency that didn’t work according to them. pic.twitter.com/P1M1YQWYRX — ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) December 16, 2018 × The charge that the judiciary is being pressured (in the Sabarimala and Ayodhya cases) and that the country's institutions are being undermined (because of recent developments at the RBI and the CBI) has also been made against the BJP in recent times.

Game of building pressure on the judiciary has begun: PM Modi

Weeks before the Winter Session of Parliament begins, Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha Harivansh Narayan Singh said that balance between the judiciary, legislature and executive needs to be restored.

"Of late, we have seen that judiciary has been taking decisions on the issues of governance which is not correct. The separation of power is hallmark of our Constitution and it must be adhered to," Singh told exclusively to WION.

He said that the decline in relationship between legislature and judiciary started during former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's tenure and has not stopped yet. He said that institutions need to acknowledge each other's turf. He also admitted that one of the reasons for judicial overreach is because legislature itself has failed to address crucial issues of governance and law-making.

"This might be one of the reasons but there has to be national consensus on it and sentiments must be communicated that domain stepping itself is not good for democracy," said Singh.

The Winter Session of Parliament is going to convene from December 11 and Rajya Sabha has been the site of ugly battle between the Opposition parties and the government on number of issues. Singh said that his appeal to the members of the House is to come and debate the issues rather than stall the proceedings.

"Earlier, parliamentary debate were long and deep and members would come well prepared and tried to get into the root of the issue. Senior journalists like BG Varghese would say that coming to Parliament was an education and these are his observations," he said. Singh also said that this is the 150th birth anniversary year of Mahatma Gandhi and discussions should have started on his philosophy, his relevance in today's time.

Singh said that the issue of population which would impact us in near future has not seen a seasoned debate. "India very soon will surpass China's population. What will be our response? Do we have a policy dealing with consequence of world biggest population?" he asked.

He expressed displeasure over the fact that proceedings have continuously been hit because of daily round of controversies but said that lack of confidence between the Opposition and government did not start in 2014. "It started during Indira Gandhi's tenure after the Congress party spilt into two." Singh also said that there are many important issues which must be brought to table for discussion as some of them require national consensus.

When asked whether the issue of judicial overreach requires a national consensus, he said, "Of course it does require a bipartisan consensus but for that conversation in Parliament must take place." Singh also said that greater responsibility lies on the shoulders of the House of Elders. "In Mahabharata, it is said that people generally do what seniors are seen to be doing. We cannot be seen to be doing frivolous things," he said.

BJP and its allies do not command simple majority in Rajya Sabha. The Opposition enjoys numerical heft in the House of Elders hence most of the bills find themselves stalled in the House. It is for this reason that instead of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha has become the site of contest between the Opposition and the government.

Weeks before the Winter Session of Parliament begins, Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha Harivansh Narayan Singh said that balance between the judiciary, legislature and executive needs to be restored.

Weeks before the Winter Session of Parliament begins, Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha Harivansh Narayan Singh said that balance between the judiciary, legislature and executive needs to be restored. "Of late, we have seen that judiciary has been taking decisions on the issues of governance which is not correct. The separation of power is hallmark of our Constitution and it must be adhered to," Singh told exclusively to WION. He said that the decline in relationship between legislature and judiciary started during former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's tenure and has not stopped yet. He said that institutions need to acknowledge each other's turf. He also admitted that one of the reasons for judicial overreach is because legislature itself has failed to address crucial issues of governance and law-making. "This might be one of the reasons but there has to be national consensus on it and sentiments must be communicated that domain stepping itself is not good for democracy," said Singh. The Winter Session of Parliament is going to convene from December 11 and Rajya Sabha has been the site of ugly battle between the Opposition parties and the government on number of issues. Singh said that his appeal to the members of the House is to come and debate the issues rather than stall the proceedings. "Earlier, parliamentary debate were long and deep and members would come well prepared and tried to get into the root of the issue. Senior journalists like BG Varghese would say that coming to Parliament was an education and these are his observations," he said. Singh also said that this is the 150th birth anniversary year of Mahatma Gandhi and discussions should have started on his philosophy, his relevance in today's time. Singh said that the issue of population which would impact us in near future has not seen a seasoned debate. "India very soon will surpass China's population. What will be our response? Do we have a policy dealing with consequence of world biggest population?" he asked. He expressed displeasure over the fact that proceedings have continuously been hit because of daily round of controversies but said that lack of confidence between the Opposition and government did not start in 2014. "It started during Indira Gandhi's tenure after the Congress party spilt into two." Singh also said that there are many important issues which must be brought to table for discussion as some of them require national consensus. When asked whether the issue of judicial overreach requires a national consensus, he said, "Of course it does require a bipartisan consensus but for that conversation in Parliament must take place." Singh also said that greater responsibility lies on the shoulders of the House of Elders. "In Mahabharata, it is said that people generally do what seniors are seen to be doing. We cannot be seen to be doing frivolous things," he said. BJP and its allies do not command simple majority in Rajya Sabha. The Opposition enjoys numerical heft in the House of Elders hence most of the bills find themselves stalled in the House. It is for this reason that instead of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha has become the site of contest between the Opposition and the government.

Balance between legislature and judiciary must be restored, says Rajya Deputy Chairman Sabha Harivansh

The law ministry recently notified the appointments of four judges, justices Hemant Gupta, R Subhash Reddy, MR Shah and Ajay Rastogi to the Supreme Court within 48 hours of the Supreme Court Collegium recommending them to the government.

Though it appears to be a welcome move, the modus operandi of the government, vis-a-vis judicial appointments, looks doubtful.

The Union government was under pressure early this year for resisting Justice KM Joseph’s elevation to Supreme Court on the ground that in the All India High Court judges’ seniority list, he was placed at serial number 42 and there were presently 11 chief justices of various high courts who were senior to him.

A brief survey of past appointments makes it evident that seniority either an appointment to the post of chief justice of the high courts or to elevation from high courts to Supreme Court have only been given little weight.

Justice JR Mudholkar, a judge of the Bombay High Court and number 7 among permanent judges of the various high courts was elevated to the Supreme Court (on 3.10.1960) in preference to all the chief justices of the high courts. Justice RS Bachawat was at No. 2 in the list of permanent judges of various high courts when he was appointed to the Supreme Court (on 7.9.1964) in preference to the then chief justices of the high courts.

Justice GK Mitter, No. 8 in the list of permanent judges of the various high courts was appointed to the Supreme Court (on 29.8.1966) bypassing three judges senior to him at the Calcutta High Court, including the chief justice.

Likewise, Justice CA Vaidialingam was appointed to the Supreme Court (on 10.10.1966) when there were two other judges senior to him in the Kerala High Court, including the chief justice. His position in the list of permanent judges of various high courts was number 23. Justice AN Grover was elevated to the Supreme Court on 12.2.1968 when there were two other judges senior to him in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, including the chief justice and his position among permanent judges of the various high courts stood at 39.

Justice AN Ray, who was number 30 among permanent judges of the various high courts and junior to three other judges in the Calcutta High Court, including the chief justice, was elevated to the Supreme Court on 1.8.1969. As was Justice KK Mathew to the Supreme Court (on 4.10.1971) when there were three other judges senior to him in the Kerala High Court, including the chief justice, and his position among permanent judges of the various high courts was number 70.

Likewise, there are many instances that can be narrated. Justice YV Chandrachud was at number 19 in the list of permanent judges of the various high courts and junior to two judges of his own high court, including the then chief justice, when he was appointed to the Supreme Court on 23.8.1972.

This trend has continued. Justice Ranjan Gogoi was elevated to the Supreme Court (on 23.04.2012) before his Supreme Court colleagues justices Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph, AK Sikri, SA Bobde, RK Agrawal, NV Ramana, Arun Mishra, AM Khanwilkar, AM Sapre and DY Chandrachud, who were all senior to him.

Justices Deepak Gupta and Naveen Sinha were both appointed Supreme Court judges on (17.02.2017) over the heads of 30 high court judges senior to them as of now. At the time of their appointment on February 17, 2017, they had around 40 high court judges senior to them in various high courts.

Similarly, Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Mohan M Shantanagoudar, both were elevated to Supreme Court (on 17.02.2017) in preference to 20 high court judges senior to them.

The most recent appointments of justices Hemant Gupta, R Subhash Reddy, MR Shah and Ajay Rastogi who stand at numbers 4, 5, 17 and 25 respectively in the all-India combined seniority of high court judges, has once again established that seniority has been given the go by and the choice has always been made in the name of quality and a judge’s worth on the bench.

Judicial appointments seemed to be influenced by political preferences across the world, particularly in the UK, US and India. Historically in UK, ruling political parties make every effort to appoint judges who share their ideology, and who in turn, begin to staff junior and senior ranks of the judiciary with political allies.

Similarly, politics plays an important role in the appointment of judges in the United States of America. Political influence in judicial appointments in India has a long history. George H Gadbois Jr, in his book Judges of the Supreme Court of India (1950-1989), gives crucial insights about the role of Chief Justice of India and the sway of prime minister in such appointments.

Appointment of four judges within 48 hours of collegium’s recommendation does not unveil the government’s concerns towards the judiciary. It rather postulates that these four judges fit in within the schematic framework of the government. 
&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-there-s-nothing-legal-about-it-2684682">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

The law ministry recently notified the appointments of four judges, justices Hemant Gupta, R Subhash Reddy, MR Shah and Ajay Rastogi to the Supreme Court within 48 hours of the Supreme Court Collegium recommending them to the government.

The law ministry recently notified the appointments of four judges, justices Hemant Gupta, R Subhash Reddy, MR Shah and Ajay Rastogi to the Supreme Court within 48 hours of the Supreme Court Collegium recommending them to the government. Though it appears to be a welcome move, the modus operandi of the government, vis-a-vis judicial appointments, looks doubtful. The Union government was under pressure early this year for resisting Justice KM Joseph’s elevation to Supreme Court on the ground that in the All India High Court judges’ seniority list, he was placed at serial number 42 and there were presently 11 chief justices of various high courts who were senior to him. A brief survey of past appointments makes it evident that seniority either an appointment to the post of chief justice of the high courts or to elevation from high courts to Supreme Court have only been given little weight. Justice JR Mudholkar, a judge of the Bombay High Court and number 7 among permanent judges of the various high courts was elevated to the Supreme Court (on 3.10.1960) in preference to all the chief justices of the high courts. Justice RS Bachawat was at No. 2 in the list of permanent judges of various high courts when he was appointed to the Supreme Court (on 7.9.1964) in preference to the then chief justices of the high courts. Justice GK Mitter, No. 8 in the list of permanent judges of the various high courts was appointed to the Supreme Court (on 29.8.1966) bypassing three judges senior to him at the Calcutta High Court, including the chief justice. Likewise, Justice CA Vaidialingam was appointed to the Supreme Court (on 10.10.1966) when there were two other judges senior to him in the Kerala High Court, including the chief justice. His position in the list of permanent judges of various high courts was number 23. Justice AN Grover was elevated to the Supreme Court on 12.2.1968 when there were two other judges senior to him in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, including the chief justice and his position among permanent judges of the various high courts stood at 39. Justice AN Ray, who was number 30 among permanent judges of the various high courts and junior to three other judges in the Calcutta High Court, including the chief justice, was elevated to the Supreme Court on 1.8.1969. As was Justice KK Mathew to the Supreme Court (on 4.10.1971) when there were three other judges senior to him in the Kerala High Court, including the chief justice, and his position among permanent judges of the various high courts was number 70. Likewise, there are many instances that can be narrated. Justice YV Chandrachud was at number 19 in the list of permanent judges of the various high courts and junior to two judges of his own high court, including the then chief justice, when he was appointed to the Supreme Court on 23.8.1972. This trend has continued. Justice Ranjan Gogoi was elevated to the Supreme Court (on 23.04.2012) before his Supreme Court colleagues justices Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph, AK Sikri, SA Bobde, RK Agrawal, NV Ramana, Arun Mishra, AM Khanwilkar, AM Sapre and DY Chandrachud, who were all senior to him. Justices Deepak Gupta and Naveen Sinha were both appointed Supreme Court judges on (17.02.2017) over the heads of 30 high court judges senior to them as of now. At the time of their appointment on February 17, 2017, they had around 40 high court judges senior to them in various high courts. Similarly, Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Mohan M Shantanagoudar, both were elevated to Supreme Court (on 17.02.2017) in preference to 20 high court judges senior to them. The most recent appointments of justices Hemant Gupta, R Subhash Reddy, MR Shah and Ajay Rastogi who stand at numbers 4, 5, 17 and 25 respectively in the all-India combined seniority of high court judges, has once again established that seniority has been given the go by and the choice has always been made in the name of quality and a judge’s worth on the bench. Judicial appointments seemed to be influenced by political preferences across the world, particularly in the UK, US and India. Historically in UK, ruling political parties make every effort to appoint judges who share their ideology, and who in turn, begin to staff junior and senior ranks of the judiciary with political allies. Similarly, politics plays an important role in the appointment of judges in the United States of America. Political influence in judicial appointments in India has a long history. George H Gadbois Jr, in his book Judges of the Supreme Court of India (1950-1989), gives crucial insights about the role of Chief Justice of India and the sway of prime minister in such appointments. Appointment of four judges within 48 hours of collegium’s recommendation does not unveil the government’s concerns towards the judiciary. It rather postulates that these four judges fit in within the schematic framework of the government. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Politics plays important role in appointment of judges

Justice Gautam Patel of the Bombay High Court has come out in support of the ongoing #MeToo movement currently <a href="http://www.wionews.com/entertainment/housefull-4-sajid-khan-steps-down-as-director-akshay-kumar-says-wont-work-with-proven-offenders-171068">sweeping the country's landscape</a>, saying the patriarchal world does not allow women to speak freely.

Justice Patel Thursday said he "fully supported" the women who had decided to share their experiences of sexual harassment and name their tormentors.

Speaking at an event organised by the women's wing of the Indian Merchants' Chamber in the city, Justice Patel cited the case of American actor and comedian Bill Cosby, who was convicted last month in a case of sexual assault that took place 14 years ago.

He said just as evidence was gathered and due process of law was followed by the authorities in Cosby's case, authorities in India also must ensure that the due legal process was followed in cases where women were naming their harassers and seeking action.

"I fully support women who are coming out and have the courage to speak because it takes lot of courage to speak at any time.

"Why women have not come forward is a very serious problem, and the reason is that because our world is so patriarchal and so biased that it does not allow our women to speak freely at times when they should or they could," he said.

"We now need to have a discussion on how we are going to get rid of this completely damaged, mocked system that we have of judging this cause," he said.

Though he steered clear of taking names or pointing out specific instances, Justice Patel said the judiciary was also plagued with "rampant sexism and the culture of patriarchy".

"This incessant bullying of women, no matter how competent they are is because they are women and this is the archetypal, nauseating patriarchy of our legal profession. It is not discussed, it happens everywhere.

"If I find a male lawyer trying to intimidate a female lawyer, I must never allow that to happen...The effort must be to strive towards gender neutrality," he said.

Justice Patel also used the occasion to draw one's attention to overburdened courts, another problem faced by the country's judiciary.

"By December 2019, eleven judges (of the Bombay High Court) will retire and there are only four names finalised by now. We are going to be in lot of trouble," he said.&nbsp;

Justice Gautam Patel of the Bombay High Court has come out in support of the ongoing #MeToo movement currently sweeping the country's landscape, saying the patriarchal world does not allow women to speak freely.

Justice Gautam Patel of the Bombay High Court has come out in support of the ongoing #MeToo movement currently sweeping the country's landscape, saying the patriarchal world does not allow women to speak freely. Justice Patel Thursday said he "fully supported" the women who had decided to share their experiences of sexual harassment and name their tormentors. Speaking at an event organised by the women's wing of the Indian Merchants' Chamber in the city, Justice Patel cited the case of American actor and comedian Bill Cosby, who was convicted last month in a case of sexual assault that took place 14 years ago. He said just as evidence was gathered and due process of law was followed by the authorities in Cosby's case, authorities in India also must ensure that the due legal process was followed in cases where women were naming their harassers and seeking action. "I fully support women who are coming out and have the courage to speak because it takes lot of courage to speak at any time. "Why women have not come forward is a very serious problem, and the reason is that because our world is so patriarchal and so biased that it does not allow our women to speak freely at times when they should or they could," he said. "We now need to have a discussion on how we are going to get rid of this completely damaged, mocked system that we have of judging this cause," he said. Though he steered clear of taking names or pointing out specific instances, Justice Patel said the judiciary was also plagued with "rampant sexism and the culture of patriarchy". "This incessant bullying of women, no matter how competent they are is because they are women and this is the archetypal, nauseating patriarchy of our legal profession. It is not discussed, it happens everywhere. "If I find a male lawyer trying to intimidate a female lawyer, I must never allow that to happen...The effort must be to strive towards gender neutrality," he said. Justice Patel also used the occasion to draw one's attention to overburdened courts, another problem faced by the country's judiciary. "By December 2019, eleven judges (of the Bombay High Court) will retire and there are only four names finalised by now. We are going to be in lot of trouble," he said.

#MeToo: Bombay High Court judge says judiciary plagued with 'rampant sexism'

The recent rejection of the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India (CJI), which was a misadventure at the behest of Congress in conjunction with other opposition parties, did bring back the unsavoury flavour of 1970s and rekindled the debate of the political class trying to tame the judiciary for its own vested interests.

In the hindsight, it was in 1973, when the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi appointed Justice A N Ray as CJI while superseding three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. This appointment was against all established traditions of the Supreme Court. It caused widespread opposition and compelled the superseded judges to resign but to no avail. Again, in 1977, it was Justice M H Beg who was appointed as the CJI instead of one of the most illustrious judges of India, Justice H R Khanna. Letting his actions resonate with his conscience, Justice Khanna also resigned on the same day. A deeper analysis of these two incidents brings to the fore a disturbing revelation. As per the records, while Justice Ray and Justice Beg were rewarded for their pro-government stance, Justice Khanna paid the price for upholding the majesty of law against the interests of the government. In the case of ADM, Jabalpur vs Shiv Kant Shukla, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus Case, Justice Khanna was the only judge who gave the judgment against the government while Justice Beg, who was a part of the same bench, ruled in favour.

And now, the impeachment motion against the CJI reveals the undying desire of the executive to have a committed judiciary and it is willing to resort to every move, whether justified or not. The details which are available in the public domain make it abundantly clear that it was nothing more than a malicious step taken for the vested interests and exert undue pressure on the judiciary. The impeachment proceedings against a constitutional functionary, holding an office as high as the CJI, ought to be supported by sound facts and rationale and cannot be a mere roving inquiry into the conduct.

Not only the opposition, even the government of the day cannot escape the blame. While it is criticising the impeachment motion wholeheartedly, its own disregard of the judiciary is noticeable. The latest in the series of various clashes between the judiciary and executive is the issue of elevation of Justice K M Joseph, who is currently the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand, to the Supreme Court. The Centre has raised various objections to the elevation. While these may, prima facie, not seem to be worthy of a doubt, at the root of it, however, is the fact that it was Justice K M Joseph who set aside President's Rule in Uttarakhand. Similarly, in 2014, similar circumstances prevailed when Gopal Subramaniam's name was recommended for elevation to the Supreme Court. Although Subramniam himself withdrew his candidature to save himself that unfounded humiliation, it would not go unnoticed that it was him who, acting as amicus curiae in the Sohrabuddin encounter case, convinced the Supreme Court to order CBI probe in the case.

Seniority is not a precondition for appointment or elevation in almost all the jurisdictions in the world. Even in India, the then Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, Justice M C Chagla, was recommended to be directly appointed as the Chief Justice of India. It is only resorted to as a practice by the apex court but the way it is being misused by the executive makes its political motives abundantly clear. We have to realise that, while everyone has a right to disagree with the judicial verdicts - and we do see healthy criticisms of the same on a regular basis - the courts are the final interpreter of the laws and we, as citizens, are bound to accept them gracefully.

Ironically, when the President of Maldives tried to gag the judiciary, India urged the Maldivian government to abide by the apex court verdict, whereas, back home, our government is trying the same, albeit in a 'democratic' manner.

With due regards, this state of affairs has, in part, to do with judiciary refraining from coming down hard on the political class. As has been observed by various legal stalwarts, it is high time that the judiciary starts invoking the contempt provisions against such malicious actions, irrespective of the position and stature of the individual. It is only then that we can hope to reinstate the majesty of courts.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The impeachment motion against the CJI reveals the undying desire of the executive to have a committed judiciary and it is willing to resort to every move.

The recent rejection of the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India (CJI), which was a misadventure at the behest of Congress in conjunction with other opposition parties, did bring back the unsavoury flavour of 1970s and rekindled the debate of the political class trying to tame the judiciary for its own vested interests. In the hindsight, it was in 1973, when the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi appointed Justice A N Ray as CJI while superseding three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. This appointment was against all established traditions of the Supreme Court. It caused widespread opposition and compelled the superseded judges to resign but to no avail. Again, in 1977, it was Justice M H Beg who was appointed as the CJI instead of one of the most illustrious judges of India, Justice H R Khanna. Letting his actions resonate with his conscience, Justice Khanna also resigned on the same day. A deeper analysis of these two incidents brings to the fore a disturbing revelation. As per the records, while Justice Ray and Justice Beg were rewarded for their pro-government stance, Justice Khanna paid the price for upholding the majesty of law against the interests of the government. In the case of ADM, Jabalpur vs Shiv Kant Shukla, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus Case, Justice Khanna was the only judge who gave the judgment against the government while Justice Beg, who was a part of the same bench, ruled in favour. And now, the impeachment motion against the CJI reveals the undying desire of the executive to have a committed judiciary and it is willing to resort to every move, whether justified or not. The details which are available in the public domain make it abundantly clear that it was nothing more than a malicious step taken for the vested interests and exert undue pressure on the judiciary. The impeachment proceedings against a constitutional functionary, holding an office as high as the CJI, ought to be supported by sound facts and rationale and cannot be a mere roving inquiry into the conduct. Not only the opposition, even the government of the day cannot escape the blame. While it is criticising the impeachment motion wholeheartedly, its own disregard of the judiciary is noticeable. The latest in the series of various clashes between the judiciary and executive is the issue of elevation of Justice K M Joseph, who is currently the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand, to the Supreme Court. The Centre has raised various objections to the elevation. While these may, prima facie, not seem to be worthy of a doubt, at the root of it, however, is the fact that it was Justice K M Joseph who set aside President's Rule in Uttarakhand. Similarly, in 2014, similar circumstances prevailed when Gopal Subramaniam's name was recommended for elevation to the Supreme Court. Although Subramniam himself withdrew his candidature to save himself that unfounded humiliation, it would not go unnoticed that it was him who, acting as amicus curiae in the Sohrabuddin encounter case, convinced the Supreme Court to order CBI probe in the case. Seniority is not a precondition for appointment or elevation in almost all the jurisdictions in the world. Even in India, the then Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, Justice M C Chagla, was recommended to be directly appointed as the Chief Justice of India. It is only resorted to as a practice by the apex court but the way it is being misused by the executive makes its political motives abundantly clear. We have to realise that, while everyone has a right to disagree with the judicial verdicts - and we do see healthy criticisms of the same on a regular basis - the courts are the final interpreter of the laws and we, as citizens, are bound to accept them gracefully. Ironically, when the President of Maldives tried to gag the judiciary, India urged the Maldivian government to abide by the apex court verdict, whereas, back home, our government is trying the same, albeit in a 'democratic' manner. With due regards, this state of affairs has, in part, to do with judiciary refraining from coming down hard on the political class. As has been observed by various legal stalwarts, it is high time that the judiciary starts invoking the contempt provisions against such malicious actions, irrespective of the position and stature of the individual. It is only then that we can hope to reinstate the majesty of courts. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Politicising the judiciary - a disturbing trend

The BJP on Friday lashed out at the Congress for its move to impeach the chief justice of India, saying it was trying to "demean, degrade and denigrate" the judiciary after its "conspiracies" in the case of judge B H Loya's death and riot charges against its Gujarat leader Maya Kodnani were exposed.

BJP spokesperson Meenakshi Lekhi told reporters that the impeachment move is an attempt to pressure the judiciary and send out the message that "either you do what we say and if you dare not do as we command", then it will impeach judges.

She said Kodnani, who was acquitted by the Gujarat High Court today, was victimised by the Congress and implicated in a "false case" when it was in power at the Centre as it wanted to implicate the saffron party's leaders in false cases.

"It also hatched a conspiracy in the judge Loya death case. Evidence in these cases could not stand the judicial scrutiny. The Congress and other opposition parties levelled false allegations against our leaders but they are getting exposed now," she said.

Whether it was petitioned for a probe into the Loya death case or the charges against Kadnani, they were all fabricated cases, she said.

The Constitution envisaged by B R Ambedkar views the judiciary independent of policies but the Congress is trying to politicise it.&nbsp

As the opposition party is losing political ground, it has resorted to such pressure tactics motivated by "malice", Lekhi said.

It is an attempt to demean, degrade and denigrate the judiciary, she said.

The Supreme Court had yesterday dismissed a batch of petitions seeking probe to judge Loya's death, saying he died of natural cases.

The Gujarat High Court acquitted Kodnani, a former minister in the state government, in the 2002 Naroda Patiya riots case in which 97 people were killed by a mob.&nbsp

Meenakshi Lekhi told reporters that the impeachment move is an attempt to pressure the judiciary and send out the message that "either you do what we say and if you dare not do as we command", then it will impeach judges.

The BJP on Friday lashed out at the Congress for its move to impeach the chief justice of India, saying it was trying to "demean, degrade and denigrate" the judiciary after its "conspiracies" in the case of judge B H Loya's death and riot charges against its Gujarat leader Maya Kodnani were exposed. BJP spokesperson Meenakshi Lekhi told reporters that the impeachment move is an attempt to pressure the judiciary and send out the message that "either you do what we say and if you dare not do as we command", then it will impeach judges. She said Kodnani, who was acquitted by the Gujarat High Court today, was victimised by the Congress and implicated in a "false case" when it was in power at the Centre as it wanted to implicate the saffron party's leaders in false cases. "It also hatched a conspiracy in the judge Loya death case. Evidence in these cases could not stand the judicial scrutiny. The Congress and other opposition parties levelled false allegations against our leaders but they are getting exposed now," she said. Whether it was petitioned for a probe into the Loya death case or the charges against Kadnani, they were all fabricated cases, she said. The Constitution envisaged by B R Ambedkar views the judiciary independent of policies but the Congress is trying to politicise it. As the opposition party is losing political ground, it has resorted to such pressure tactics motivated by "malice", Lekhi said. It is an attempt to demean, degrade and denigrate the judiciary, she said. The Supreme Court had yesterday dismissed a batch of petitions seeking probe to judge Loya's death, saying he died of natural cases. The Gujarat High Court acquitted Kodnani, a former minister in the state government, in the 2002 Naroda Patiya riots case in which 97 people were killed by a mob.

CJI impeachment move as Cong's conspiracies were exposed: BJP

The resignation of NIA special court judge Ravinder Reddy, who delivered the verdict in &nbsp;Mecca Masjid blast case, has been rejected by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.&nbsp; 
 
Reddy has been asked to attend to his duties immediately, ANI reported sources as saying.&nbsp;

Nine people had died in the 2007 blast, which took place in Hyderabad.&nbsp;

10 people had been accused in the case, five of whom stood trial.&nbsp;

Reddy had acquitted all five earlier this week.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/mecca-blast-verdict-asaduddin-owaisi-terms-nia-blind-deaf-131332">Asaduddin Owaisi calls NIA 'blind and deaf'</a>

Right after the verdict, he had resigned.&nbsp;

Special court judge Ravinder Reddy's resignation has been rejected by the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court. He has reportedly been asked to attend to his duties immediately

The resignation of NIA special court judge Ravinder Reddy, who delivered the verdict in Mecca Masjid blast case, has been rejected by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Reddy has been asked to attend to his duties immediately, ANI reported sources as saying. Nine people had died in the 2007 blast, which took place in Hyderabad. 10 people had been accused in the case, five of whom stood trial. Reddy had acquitted all five earlier this week. Also read: Asaduddin Owaisi calls NIA 'blind and deaf' Right after the verdict, he had resigned.

Resignation of judge who delivered Mecca Masjid blast verdict rejected: Sources

The issues raised by the four senior Supreme Court judges in the unprecedented press conference on Friday are an &quot;internal&quot; matter of the judiciary, highly placed sources said, indicating that the government is unlikely to interfere.

The government has no say in it and does not wish to interfere, the sources said.

It is an internal matter of the judiciary, the sources in the government said.

However, they also added that the apex court should settle the issue at the earliest as the faith of the people in the judiciary is at stake.

In an unprecedented move, four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court today called a press conference and said the situation in the top court was &quot;not in order&quot; and many &quot;less than desirable&quot; things have taken place.

The second senior judge after the Chief Justice of India, Justice J Chelameswar, said, &quot;... Sometimes administration of the Supreme Court is not in order and many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months&quot;.

The other judges who were present at the press conference were Justices Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur, and Kurian Joseph.

Official sources in the law ministry said Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad has not met Prime Minister Narendra Modi in this regard so far.

The government has no say in it and does not wish to interfere, the sources said.

The issues raised by the four senior Supreme Court judges in the unprecedented press conference on Friday are an "internal" matter of the judiciary, highly placed sources said, indicating that the government is unlikely to interfere. The government has no say in it and does not wish to interfere, the sources said. It is an internal matter of the judiciary, the sources in the government said. However, they also added that the apex court should settle the issue at the earliest as the faith of the people in the judiciary is at stake. In an unprecedented move, four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court today called a press conference and said the situation in the top court was "not in order" and many "less than desirable" things have taken place. The second senior judge after the Chief Justice of India, Justice J Chelameswar, said, "... Sometimes administration of the Supreme Court is not in order and many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months". The other judges who were present at the press conference were Justices Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur, and Kurian Joseph. Official sources in the law ministry said Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad has not met Prime Minister Narendra Modi in this regard so far.

Issues raised by SC judges 'internal matter of judiciary': Sources

Prime Minister Narendra Modi while addressing the Constitution Day celebration, emphasised the need for the government and judiciary to be on the same page for realising the dream of a &#39;New India&#39;, and doubted whether they are working in unison. Though Modi spoke in a placid manner, his Minister of Law and Justice Mr Ravi Shankar Prasad was harsher while reminding the judiciary that law-making must be left in the realm of those elected to make the law and judiciary should not behave like a super-legislature.

He also mockingly reminded that independence of the judiciary is &lsquo;important&rsquo; but judicial accountability probity and propriety are too indispensable. The message was a patent that this government like any other authoritative government wants a committed judiciary i.e. a judiciary committed to the policies of the government.

The idea and substance of a committed judiciary were practised in the United States. It is well known that Chief Justice John Marshall imposed upon his colleagues the practice of delivering only unanimous opinions in order to secure the fledgling authority of the Supreme Court.

President Thomas Jefferson&rsquo;s objections to this development and his initiatives against this practice, including the appointments of justices of his own choice are equally well documented. Jefferson&rsquo;s appointment of William Johnson as Associate Justice and his subsequent stream of advice to him on breaking Chief Justice Marshall&rsquo;s hold on the court displays his aspiration of having committed judges.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>When the nation&rsquo;s senior-most judges questioned the government in the name of constitution and justice, they were superseded.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=When the nation?s senior-most judges questioned the government in the name of constitution and justice, they were superseded." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The Indian Supreme Court could not remain aloof to this idea of the committed judiciary. Since inception, the government attempted to confine the role of judges. Once Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru while discussing the role of judges expressed his view in following words: &ldquo;If we go wrong here and there, it can be pointed out but in the ultimate analysis no judiciary can stand in judgement over the sovereign will of the entire community. A judge can correct the wrong here and there; they cannot arrogate to themselves the position of the super house of a parliament.&rdquo;

The craving of having a committed judiciary got more prominence with Indira Gandhi when her election was set aside by the Allahabad High Court and some of her political decisions were challenged in cases like Privy Purse case and Bank Nationalisation Case.

When the nation&rsquo;s senior-most judges questioned the government in the name of Constitution and justice, they were superseded. Many judges of the High Court who did not toe the line with the government were transferred. Attempts were made to install &lsquo;committed&rsquo; judges in the Supreme Court.

These installed committed judges tried to protect the interest of the government and when they could not, they penned down dissenting opinions to prove his loyalty. An attempt was also made by the committed Chief Justice of India to overrule the &lsquo;basic structure doctrine&rsquo; by creating a bunch of committed and like-minded judges but fortunately could not succeed.

Mrs Gandhi vindicated her claim for &lsquo;commitment&rsquo; by referring President Roosevelt of the United States of America has appointed judges who were committed to his programmes.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The judges must function without fear and favour otherwise the question of their being impartial or independent will be rendered nugatory.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The judges must function without fear and favour otherwise the question of their being impartial or independent will be rendered nugatory." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The behaviour of the Judge is the fortress for the people to reap the fruits of the democracy, liberty and justice and the antithesis rocks the bottom of the rule of law. The judges must function without fear and favour otherwise the question of their being impartial or independent will be rendered nugatory.

They are required to &lsquo;uphold the constitution and the laws&rsquo;, &lsquo;without fear&rsquo; and favour. If Judiciary is committed to the policies of the government, the &lsquo;independence of judiciary&rsquo; and the &lsquo;system of checks and balances&rsquo; which are essential features of the constitution will be in peril and constitutional democracy will be reduced to the dictatorship of the majority.

It will also destroy the federal fabric, another basic structure of the constitution. It will create distrust among the federal Union. There are so many disputes between the States and they would not have trust in the Central Government because they might sense that the Centre would favour those States where their own political party is in power.

But they would have faith in the judiciary which is equipped with jurisdiction to solve these disputes and preserve the federal identity of the constitution. The idea of the committed judiciary will spoil this federal trust and confidence.

(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

The idea of the committed judiciary will spoil this federal trust and confidence

Prime Minister Narendra Modi while addressing the Constitution Day celebration, emphasised the need for the government and judiciary to be on the same page for realising the dream of a 'New India', and doubted whether they are working in unison. Though Modi spoke in a placid manner, his Minister of Law and Justice Mr Ravi Shankar Prasad was harsher while reminding the judiciary that law-making must be left in the realm of those elected to make the law and judiciary should not behave like a super-legislature. He also mockingly reminded that independence of the judiciary is ‘important’ but judicial accountability probity and propriety are too indispensable. The message was a patent that this government like any other authoritative government wants a committed judiciary i.e. a judiciary committed to the policies of the government. The idea and substance of a committed judiciary were practised in the United States. It is well known that Chief Justice John Marshall imposed upon his colleagues the practice of delivering only unanimous opinions in order to secure the fledgling authority of the Supreme Court. President Thomas Jefferson’s objections to this development and his initiatives against this practice, including the appointments of justices of his own choice are equally well documented. Jefferson’s appointment of William Johnson as Associate Justice and his subsequent stream of advice to him on breaking Chief Justice Marshall’s hold on the court displays his aspiration of having committed judges. When the nation’s senior-most judges questioned the government in the name of constitution and justice, they were superseded. × The Indian Supreme Court could not remain aloof to this idea of the committed judiciary. Since inception, the government attempted to confine the role of judges. Once Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru while discussing the role of judges expressed his view in following words: “If we go wrong here and there, it can be pointed out but in the ultimate analysis no judiciary can stand in judgement over the sovereign will of the entire community. A judge can correct the wrong here and there; they cannot arrogate to themselves the position of the super house of a parliament.” The craving of having a committed judiciary got more prominence with Indira Gandhi when her election was set aside by the Allahabad High Court and some of her political decisions were challenged in cases like Privy Purse case and Bank Nationalisation Case. When the nation’s senior-most judges questioned the government in the name of Constitution and justice, they were superseded. Many judges of the High Court who did not toe the line with the government were transferred. Attempts were made to install ‘committed’ judges in the Supreme Court. These installed committed judges tried to protect the interest of the government and when they could not, they penned down dissenting opinions to prove his loyalty. An attempt was also made by the committed Chief Justice of India to overrule the ‘basic structure doctrine’ by creating a bunch of committed and like-minded judges but fortunately could not succeed. Mrs Gandhi vindicated her claim for ‘commitment’ by referring President Roosevelt of the United States of America has appointed judges who were committed to his programmes. The judges must function without fear and favour otherwise the question of their being impartial or independent will be rendered nugatory. × The behaviour of the Judge is the fortress for the people to reap the fruits of the democracy, liberty and justice and the antithesis rocks the bottom of the rule of law. The judges must function without fear and favour otherwise the question of their being impartial or independent will be rendered nugatory. They are required to ‘uphold the constitution and the laws’, ‘without fear’ and favour. If Judiciary is committed to the policies of the government, the ‘independence of judiciary’ and the ‘system of checks and balances’ which are essential features of the constitution will be in peril and constitutional democracy will be reduced to the dictatorship of the majority. It will also destroy the federal fabric, another basic structure of the constitution. It will create distrust among the federal Union. There are so many disputes between the States and they would not have trust in the Central Government because they might sense that the Centre would favour those States where their own political party is in power. But they would have faith in the judiciary which is equipped with jurisdiction to solve these disputes and preserve the federal identity of the constitution. The idea of the committed judiciary will spoil this federal trust and confidence. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: Why judiciary can't be committed to the government

President Ram Nath Kovind said today that it was critical not to disturb the fraternity of separation of powers and maintain a &quot;delicate balance&quot; while exploring the relationship between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature as they are all equal. The three organs of the state should be conscious of their liberty and strive to protect their autonomy, he said.

However, they should be careful about not disturbing the fraternity of separation of powers &quot;by even unknowingly intruding into the domain of either of the two other branches&quot;, the president said.

&quot;It is critical to keep this intricate and delicate balance in mind when exploring the relationship between the three branches of the state - that is, the judiciary, the legislature and the executive. They are all equal,&quot; Kovind said while inaugurating the function organised by the Supreme Court here to celebrate the Constitution Day.

He said the Constitution is &quot;not static but is a living document&quot; and the sobriety and discretion in communication between these three branches of the state is extremely advisable.

&quot;This will promote and enhance fraternity between three equal branches of the state, all of which have a certain responsibility to the Constitution. It will also reassure the ordinary citizen that the Constitution is safe - and in mature hands,&quot; the president said.

He also emphasised that high courts across the country need to take up the task of quickly providing certified translated copies of judgements to the litigants in local and regional languages.

&quot;Even the hearings in court, if possible, have to be in a language that is understandable to the ordinary litigant. The process of case disposal too has to be made faster,&quot; he said.

The president also said that it was upon the higher judiciary to mentor and encourage the lower judiciary and in this process, the cooperation of state governments was very much necessary.

He said it was for the state governments to ensure that the judges of the district and subordinate courts were not denied their due perquisites and facilities and high courts should urge the subordinate courts to be more efficient and conclude cases faster.

&quot;I am glad to note, some high courts are taking steps in these directions. As of June 30, 2017, there were about 76,000 old cases, pending for five years or more, in sessions and district courts under the High Court of Jharkhand. The High Court has set a target of March 31, 2018, to dispose off almost half these cases,&quot; he said.

He also referred to the initiative of the Chhattisgarh High Court in setting a deadline of April 30, 2018, for the subordinate courts to dispose off cases pending for over 10 years and September 30 next year deadline for disposing cases pending for between five and 10 years.

&quot;The High Court of Chhattisgarh has also started to make provision for availability of Hindi versions of judgements and orders. I commend these initiatives. I am sure other high courts are also moving ahead with a similar sense of public service,&quot; Kovind said.

He said that Constitution is not just an abstract ideal and it has to be made meaningful to the lives of ordinary people in every street, every village and every &#39;mohalla&#39; of the country.

Delivering a lecture on &#39;constitutional value&#39; at the function, former Chief Justice of India R C Lahoti referred to the historical events related to framing of the Constitution.

He said that the Constitution is the &quot;religion of all the religions&quot;.

Referring to the judiciary, the ex-CJI said that while other organs of the state may afford to fail and falter, the judiciary cannot &quot;afford to fail&quot;.

However, he also had a word of caution for the judiciary and said that it should not take upon the role of the executive and the legislature while discharging judicial functions as a &quot;judge is always on trial&quot;.

President Ram Nath Kovind said that the Constitution was the 'religion of all religions', while inaugurating the function organized by the Supreme Court

President Ram Nath Kovind said today that it was critical not to disturb the fraternity of separation of powers and maintain a "delicate balance" while exploring the relationship between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature as they are all equal. The three organs of the state should be conscious of their liberty and strive to protect their autonomy, he said. However, they should be careful about not disturbing the fraternity of separation of powers "by even unknowingly intruding into the domain of either of the two other branches", the president said. "It is critical to keep this intricate and delicate balance in mind when exploring the relationship between the three branches of the state - that is, the judiciary, the legislature and the executive. They are all equal," Kovind said while inaugurating the function organised by the Supreme Court here to celebrate the Constitution Day. He said the Constitution is "not static but is a living document" and the sobriety and discretion in communication between these three branches of the state is extremely advisable. "This will promote and enhance fraternity between three equal branches of the state, all of which have a certain responsibility to the Constitution. It will also reassure the ordinary citizen that the Constitution is safe - and in mature hands," the president said. He also emphasised that high courts across the country need to take up the task of quickly providing certified translated copies of judgements to the litigants in local and regional languages. "Even the hearings in court, if possible, have to be in a language that is understandable to the ordinary litigant. The process of case disposal too has to be made faster," he said. The president also said that it was upon the higher judiciary to mentor and encourage the lower judiciary and in this process, the cooperation of state governments was very much necessary. He said it was for the state governments to ensure that the judges of the district and subordinate courts were not denied their due perquisites and facilities and high courts should urge the subordinate courts to be more efficient and conclude cases faster. "I am glad to note, some high courts are taking steps in these directions. As of June 30, 2017, there were about 76,000 old cases, pending for five years or more, in sessions and district courts under the High Court of Jharkhand. The High Court has set a target of March 31, 2018, to dispose off almost half these cases," he said. He also referred to the initiative of the Chhattisgarh High Court in setting a deadline of April 30, 2018, for the subordinate courts to dispose off cases pending for over 10 years and September 30 next year deadline for disposing cases pending for between five and 10 years. "The High Court of Chhattisgarh has also started to make provision for availability of Hindi versions of judgements and orders. I commend these initiatives. I am sure other high courts are also moving ahead with a similar sense of public service," Kovind said. He said that Constitution is not just an abstract ideal and it has to be made meaningful to the lives of ordinary people in every street, every village and every 'mohalla' of the country. Delivering a lecture on 'constitutional value' at the function, former Chief Justice of India R C Lahoti referred to the historical events related to framing of the Constitution. He said that the Constitution is the "religion of all the religions". Referring to the judiciary, the ex-CJI said that while other organs of the state may afford to fail and falter, the judiciary cannot "afford to fail". However, he also had a word of caution for the judiciary and said that it should not take upon the role of the executive and the legislature while discharging judicial functions as a "judge is always on trial".

Critical not to disturb the fraternity of separation of powers: Ram Nath Kovind on Constitution Day

Chief Justice of India Justice T S Thakur today said that &quot;corresponding upgradation&quot; of judiciary was a must to face the challenges of emerging social and economic scenario and observed that &quot;unpolluted and speedy justice still remains a distant dream&quot;. 
 
Thakur said that the three pillars of our democratic set up have many challenges, which assume greater dimensions as we make all round progress, widening the gulf between haves and have nots. 
 
In his address at 23rd convocation of Himachal Pradesh University in the northern city Shimla, Thakur said that &quot;the judiciary as third pillar has its own challenges of making access to judiciary easy and unpolluted and speedy justice remains a distant dream for variety of reasons, especially when the country is making rapid strides on the developmental front&quot;. 
 
&quot;The legislature and executive face the formidable challenge of banishing poverty by preventing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few as a sizable section of people continue to suffer from all kinds of deprivation and the number of poor people is increasing ever year and challenges of clean drinking water, basic minimum health care, education and jobs for every able bodied person remains a daunting task even after 70 years of independence,&quot; he lamented. 
 
Forty years of planned development, liberalisation and reforms has made India relevant to the world and enabled 700 million smartphones and 332 million internet users, but India&#39;s consumer story is led by 130 million urban consumers and is only one side of the story, he said. 
 
He said that land reforms have remained an unfulfilled project since 1950s, growth carries burden of shrinking jobs, workforce falling into urban middle class constitutes only two per cent of the population, educated middle class facing reduction in jobs and technology was replacing the labour, as he stressed need for immediate re-skilling to be job relevant. 
 
&quot;A resurgent India faces challenges of global competitiveness, social inclusiveness, and environmental sustainability and it is not possible for the institutions handling these challenges without a resurgent idea of justice that is actually enforced. Increasing farmer suicides and resurgence cannot go together,&quot; he added. 
 
Thakur said that India&#39;s constitution and directive principles guarantee social, economic and political justice for all without regard to caste, creed or colour and also ensure religious freedom but in a society long oppressed by foreign rule and stark social and economic disparities, constitutional objectives are not easy to achieve.

T S Thakur said that the judiciary in India has many challenges especially as the country is making strides on the developmental front

Chief Justice of India Justice T S Thakur today said that "corresponding upgradation" of judiciary was a must to face the challenges of emerging social and economic scenario and observed that "unpolluted and speedy justice still remains a distant dream". Thakur said that the three pillars of our democratic set up have many challenges, which assume greater dimensions as we make all round progress, widening the gulf between haves and have nots. In his address at 23rd convocation of Himachal Pradesh University in the northern city Shimla, Thakur said that "the judiciary as third pillar has its own challenges of making access to judiciary easy and unpolluted and speedy justice remains a distant dream for variety of reasons, especially when the country is making rapid strides on the developmental front". "The legislature and executive face the formidable challenge of banishing poverty by preventing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few as a sizable section of people continue to suffer from all kinds of deprivation and the number of poor people is increasing ever year and challenges of clean drinking water, basic minimum health care, education and jobs for every able bodied person remains a daunting task even after 70 years of independence," he lamented. Forty years of planned development, liberalisation and reforms has made India relevant to the world and enabled 700 million smartphones and 332 million internet users, but India's consumer story is led by 130 million urban consumers and is only one side of the story, he said. He said that land reforms have remained an unfulfilled project since 1950s, growth carries burden of shrinking jobs, workforce falling into urban middle class constitutes only two per cent of the population, educated middle class facing reduction in jobs and technology was replacing the labour, as he stressed need for immediate re-skilling to be job relevant. "A resurgent India faces challenges of global competitiveness, social inclusiveness, and environmental sustainability and it is not possible for the institutions handling these challenges without a resurgent idea of justice that is actually enforced. Increasing farmer suicides and resurgence cannot go together," he added. Thakur said that India's constitution and directive principles guarantee social, economic and political justice for all without regard to caste, creed or colour and also ensure religious freedom but in a society long oppressed by foreign rule and stark social and economic disparities, constitutional objectives are not easy to achieve.

India's top judge says speedy justice in country remains distant dream

judiciary

Judiciary, News on Judiciary, stories on Judiciary, articles on Judiciary, Judiciary stories at Wion, Judiciary news, Judiciary latest news