What is the issue?
The principle of separation or Devolution of powers and Judicial independence are two key facets of the basic tenets of the Constitution which is beyond the scope of the redacting power of Parliament, according to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Kesavanand Bharati case 1973.The Constitutional fabric has been conceived to provide an utmost priority and pride of place to the judiciary to make it revered institution so that people's confidence in it be intact.Constitutional appointees to the Supreme Court have been guaranteed several rights in order to secure their independence in every respect,it is the bedrock of our constitutional framework.Chapter four of V of the Constitution deals with the Supreme Court, and Chapter 5 of part VI deals with the High Courts pithily.The remunerations of judges and their age of superannuation are all guaranteed in order to secure their independence.Judges cannot be easily removed or expelled except by way of impeachment under Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b) .They have the power to review legislation and strike it down if need arises.They can also question the acts of the executive like they can take suo motu cognisance in executive's matters.All this makes it unequivocal that the framers of the Constitution envisaged an unambitious judiciary for which the only guiding values were the provisions of the Constitution.The nomination of former CJI(Chief Justice Of India) Ranjan Gogoi to the Rajya Sabha within six months of his superannuation from the Supreme Court,opposition's claims seems fishy in this regard of an unabashed bonhomie between the executive and the judiciary,By nominating the former Chief Justice of India (CJI), Ranjan Gogoi, to the Rajya Sabha with his consent on March 16.CJI Ranjan Gogoi's nomination to the Rajya Sabha is nothing more than a sinecure,opposition claimed.
Main cause of concern.
Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who retired four months ago as Chief Justice of India, was nominated to the Rajya Sabha on March 16 ,2020. The nomination,coming so soon after his retirement is bound to raise questions of a quid pro quo and there will be a scanner now on judgments that he delivered and administrative actions that he took that favoured the government.In this episode,we discuss two notable instances of jurists being appointed to Parliament both controversial instances and what various people have said over the years about judges accepting post retirement postings.Indian President Ram Nath Kovind nominated Justice Gogoi to the Rajya Sabha under Article 80(1)(a) of the Constitution, which says that the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) shall consist of 12 members to be nominated by the President in accordance with the provisions of clause (3),Clause (3) of Article 80 says that the members to be nominated shall consist of persons having special knowledge,practical experience or a maestro in his/her respective fields of such matters as namely, literature, science, art and social service.In terms of Independence of judiciary means breaking the stranglehold of half-a-dozen people over it.Unless this stranglehold is broken,judiciary cannot be independent,the opposition claimed this.They hold judges to ransom if a case is not decided in a particular way advocated by them,they malign to cast a slur on the judges in every way possible so in his narrative,by joining the Rajya Sabha membership,he wants to be a buccaneer out to break that stranglehold.Ranjan Gogoi dismissed criticism that his nomination was quid pro quo for the Ayodhya,Nirbhaya Case and Rafale judgments,by saying that he being slandered because he defied lobby.
What is the way forward?
According to Justice B. Lokur, the reinstatement with full back wages by the Supreme Court of the woman complainant of sexual harassment against Justice Gogoi shows that there was some truth in her allegations.She was dismissed before an in-house inquiry committee comprising three Supreme Court judges gave a clean chit to Justice Gogoi,without sharing the contents of their report with her.Justice Lokur also raised Severe concerns over the November 2019 Supreme Court judgment on the Ayodhya dispute,whose authorship has not been disclosed till now,despite it being the unanimous judgment of the five judges on the bench.Justice Gogoi had presided over the five judge bench.Former judges of the Supreme Court,Justices Madan B. Lokur,justice Kurian Joseph, Markandey Katju and A.K. Patnaik,all criticised Justice Gogoi for accepting the favour from the government soon after his retirement.Justice Lokur asked “Has the last bastion fallen?” Justice Joseph expressed surprise that Justice Gogoi, who had exhibited such courage of conviction by participating in the press conference with three other judges (Justice Joseph, Justice Lokur and Justice J. Chelameswar) on January 12, 2018,against the then Chief Justice of India,Deepak Misra,could himself compromise the principles of independence of the judiciary.
Now it is imperative to understand these incidents in a broader fashion that the same process and procedure were acquired by the opposition unabashedly and calling it as per the constitutional law.Is it justifiable to say allegations against high office Holder is an attack on that institution? Justice Ranjan Gogoi remarked once that allegation against him in the case of molestation and harassment was a well orchestrated conspiracy to malign the pious Supreme Court was a wrong narrative.Judiciary needs a haul to make it more people centric and to play a vital role in upholding the democratic principles in our country.
Hi. I’m Designer of Blog Magic. I’m CEO/Founder of ThemeXpose. I’m Creative Art Director, Web Designer, UI/UX Designer, Interaction Designer, Industrial Designer, Web Developer, Business Enthusiast, StartUp Enthusiast, Speaker, Writer and Photographer. Inspired to make things looks better.
Thanks
ReplyDelete