National   

Judiciary asserts its primacy

New Delhi: The just-concluded year witnessed a major stand-off between the judiciary and the executive over appointment of judges to the Supreme Court. In the end, the court collegium asserted its primacy, rejecting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s request that three names it recommended for elevation be reconsidered.

Following the court’s decision, President Pratibha Patil appointed Justices A.K. Ganguly, R.M. Lodha and H.L. Dattu Supreme Court judges.

The Supreme Court upheld the appointment of Justice Ashok Kumar as judge of the Madras High Court, who was later shifted to the Andhra Pradesh High Court as permanent judge. It held that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) was not bound to consult other judges in the collegium while appointing an additional judge as permanent judge.

To weed out corrupt elements in the subordinate judiciary, the CJI asked the Chief Justices of the High Courts to periodically review the performance of district judges, assess their character and integrity and, if found unsuitable, to compulsorily retire them.

In the Ghaziabad Provident Fund scam, the CJI permitted the Central Bureau of Investigation to probe the allegation that Rs. 15 lakh in cash was deposited at the residence of a sitting judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The CJI also ordered an in-house probe by a committee of three-judges and he is examining its report.

The apex court expanded the scope of Article 21 (right to life and liberty), saying a person’s reputation is a facet of his ‘right to life’ and to protect this right, illegal preventive detention orders could be quashed even at the pre-execution stage through habeas corpus petitions.

“If a person against whom a preventive detention order has been passed can show to the court that the order is clearly illegal, why should he be compelled to go to jail? To tell such a person that although the detention order is illegal he must yet go to jail and he will be released later is a meaningless and futile exercise. If the person is sent to jail then, even if he is subsequently released, his reputation may be irreparably tarnished. The liberty of a person is a precious fundamental right under Article 21 and should not be transgressed.”

Despite an earlier ruling that public interest litigation should not be used to settle political scores, political issues cropped up before the apex court. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati moved the court to restrain the CBI from prosecuting her in a disproportionate assets case. According to her, after the Bahujan Samaj Party withdrew support to the United Progressive Alliance government at the Centre, the CBI said it had evidence to prosecute her in the disproportionate assets case of 2003.

However, after the Samajwadi Party extended support to the UPA government in the July 22 confidence vote, the CBI, on the Centre’s advice, filed an affidavit seeking to withdraw an application against the party chief, Mulayam Singh, in a disproportionate assets case in which it earlier found evidence to proceed against him.

The Centre and the CBI also came out in support of Railway Minister Lalu Prasad and his wife Rabri Devi, opposing the Bihar government’s stand on filing an appeal against their acquittal by a trial court in a disproportionate assets case resulting from the multi-crore fodder scam.

Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origin came up before the court and the Centre asserted that there was no bar on her holding a constitutional post though she acquired citizenship through naturalisation and not by birth.

Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss suffered a setback when the court quashed his decision to bring in a law aimed at removing cardio thoracic surgeon P. Venugopal as director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The court criticised the manner in which the law was enacted to target an individual.

The CJI took the initiative to conduct three Lok Adalats to settle disputes over motor vehicle accident claims, family matters and land acquisition.

Workshops were held in Delhi, Kochi and Mumbai to train journalists in court reporting.

The fifth paragraph of a report "Judiciary asserts its primacy" (January 5, 2009) was "In the Ghaziabad Provident Fund scam, the CJI permitted the Central Bureau of Investigation to probe the allegation that Rs. 15 lakh in cash was deposited at the residence of a sitting judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court .." The Ghaziabad scam and the deposit of Rs.15 lakh in cash are two different cases. The clubbing of the two different incidents was an editing error. The unedited report said ". as in the case of the Ghaziabad PF scam, the CJI permitted a CBI probe into the allegations against a Punjab and Haryana HC judge."

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Advani hopes global pressure will force Islamabad to act
FBI has given evidence to Pakistan, says report
Omar calls on Governor, stakes claim
No compromise on agenda: Mehbooba
All eyes on Nandigram
PSU oil firm executives plan strike
IPI pipeline faces uncertain future
Why suppress a dying declaration made before magistrate, asks Supreme Court
CPI wants Colombo to end military action
Bardhan blows election bugle in Ganjam
Wagons, track damaged in blast
India to send team to finalise Gorshkov price
Fog no deterrent
Judiciary asserts its primacy
Social welfare takes a backseat in Maharashtra

Copyright © 2009, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu