Recently NTV had a storyboard show on the judiciary, impeachment, and its implications. What I understood from the program is that the proposal for the impeachment motion was ill-conceived. As far as I know, this is the first time, in the Indian history that there has been a move to impeach the CJI of SC. This impetus move was conceived by Congress, followed up few other parties, including Communists. However, this proposal has been turned down by Vice-President of India, Mr. VenkaiahNaidu with an observation that it lacked substantial merit.
The constitution, it seems, says, that a CJ could be impeached only on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. However as the political class attempted to debate on the differences in the top judiciary of the apex court , the top court must itself address the issues being seized by politicians, who insist that the CJ is not assigning sensitive cases to senior judges and allotting them to his hand-picked judges, in his capacity as master of roaster . I don’t know whether this comes under proven misbehaviour? When it contends and cites the public outburst of four senior judges of SC and their allegations of abuse by CJ. The CJ must have addressed these issues by convening a full court. Another issue which was raised and had had some dark ramifications including insinuations about the way he dealt with a petition by a medical college a case of suspected bribery etc. But are the senior judges who question these acts of CJ entirely wrong? While putting in place the Collegium system for judicial appointments, the SC says “consultations with CJ” meant that the consultation with a plurality of judges.
Mr. Naidu rejecting the motion against the CJI, maybe a big setback to the opposition parties, but the image of the apex court is greatly tarnished in eyes of general public. Judiciary should regain the lost confidence which is the need of the hour. Given the simmering discontent within the judiciary, the issue certainly deserved closer scrutiny as it was also chance for the political class to engage itself in an enlightened debate on the wide range of issues affecting the higher judiciary. An impartial inquiry would have instilled confidence in the common man.
The serious action may be a resultant of “LOYA’s CASE” Supreme court’s ruling. This case may be a victory for Amit Shah, but it doesn’t explain why the Judge’s family said that he had been offered Rs100crores, and why there were unexplained injuries on his body and why the entire data has been erased from his phone when the instrument was returned to his family, three days after his death? All these incidents cast aspersions on the justice delivery system and therefore it would be seen by some as reluctance to bring out the truth.
The constitution, it seems, says, that a CJ could be impeached only on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. However as the political class attempted to debate on the differences in the top judiciary of the apex court , the top court must itself address the issues being seized by politicians, who insist that the CJ is not assigning sensitive cases to senior judges and allotting them to his hand-picked judges, in his capacity as master of roaster . I don’t know whether this comes under proven misbehaviour? When it contends and cites the public outburst of four senior judges of SC and their allegations of abuse by CJ. The CJ must have addressed these issues by convening a full court. Another issue which was raised and had had some dark ramifications including insinuations about the way he dealt with a petition by a medical college a case of suspected bribery etc. But are the senior judges who question these acts of CJ entirely wrong? While putting in place the Collegium system for judicial appointments, the SC says “consultations with CJ” meant that the consultation with a plurality of judges.
Mr. Naidu rejecting the motion against the CJI, maybe a big setback to the opposition parties, but the image of the apex court is greatly tarnished in eyes of general public. Judiciary should regain the lost confidence which is the need of the hour. Given the simmering discontent within the judiciary, the issue certainly deserved closer scrutiny as it was also chance for the political class to engage itself in an enlightened debate on the wide range of issues affecting the higher judiciary. An impartial inquiry would have instilled confidence in the common man.
The serious action may be a resultant of “LOYA’s CASE” Supreme court’s ruling. This case may be a victory for Amit Shah, but it doesn’t explain why the Judge’s family said that he had been offered Rs100crores, and why there were unexplained injuries on his body and why the entire data has been erased from his phone when the instrument was returned to his family, three days after his death? All these incidents cast aspersions on the justice delivery system and therefore it would be seen by some as reluctance to bring out the truth.
