The CJI said the “powerful and assertive Parliament” tries to assert for a greater say in the matter of judicial appointments.

Amid the judiciary-government tussle, Chief Justice of India T S Thakur on Thursday asserted the process of appointment of judges cannot be “hijacked” and judiciary needs to be independent as it plays a role in the eventuality of a “tyrannical regime”. He also made it clear that judiciary cannot depend on executive in choosing judges. He said judiciary must be independent regarding internal matters of judicial administration, including assignment of cases to the judges within the court, as unless there is an independent judiciary, the rights which are conferred by the Constitution would be “meaningless”.

The remarks, made by the CJI while delivering the 37th Bhimsen Sachar memorial lecture here on ‘Independent Judiciary – Bastion of Democracy’, assume importance in the wake of mounting tension between the judiciary and executive over the appointment of judges for higher judiciary as both the organs of the State have been blaming each other for the increasing vacancies of judges and to remain within a ‘lakshmanrekha’.


Justice Thakur, who will be demitting office of CJI on January 3 next year, said the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act 2014, which was struck down last year by the Supreme Court, was an attempt which would have affected the independence of judiciary.

CJI, Chief Justice of India, TS Thakur, appointment of judges, Courts, Supreme court, Judges appointment, Judiciary, Judges vacancy, Judges, National Judicial Appointments Commission, NJAC, India news, indian express news

Referring to Article 144 of the Constitution, TS Thakur said that it itself mentions all authorities in the country must act in aid of the judiciary. (Source: File photo)

He added the “powerful and assertive Parliament” tries to assert for a greater say in the matter of judicial appointments.

Asserting that independence of judiciary was paramount for a democracy, he said judiciary cannot depend on the executive for discharging its duties and since the government was the “biggest litigant”, one cannot say that executive can choose the judges to hear a case.

Referring to the NJAC verdict by a five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice J S Khehar who will succeed him as the CJI, Justice Thakur said, “The recent decision by the constitution bench striking down constitutional amendment by which NJAC was supposed to be set up also goes into all these aspects.”

“It discusses how the court cannot have a situation where independence of judiciary gets affected by reason of appointment process being hijacked. If you have the Law minister and two nominees of the government in the panel that is going to appoint judges, the court saw this as an attempt to affect the independence of judiciary,” he said.

“The powerful and assertive Parliament tries to assert for a greater say in the matter of judicial appointments. An attempt to take away from judiciary the power to appoint judges was seen by the judiciary as an attempt to affect the independence of judiciary.

“Constitutional amendment seeking to set up NJAC was one such attempt. It was seen as an attempt that would affect the independence of judiciary,” he said.

The CJI further said, “Judiciary must be independent as to the internal matters of judicial administration including the assignment of cases to judges within the court. Who should hear which case should not be decided by anybody except the judiciary.”

“You cannot say the executive will choose its judges. Judiciary must have complete freedom in assigning as to who would be the judges who will decide a case,” he said.

Referring to Article 144 of the Constitution, he said that it itself mentions all authorities in the country must act in aid of the judiciary.

“There is no option for statutory or non-statutory authorities except to fall in line. Judiciary is a guard who is always on the lookout like a watchman. Keeps its eyes open, that is the role judiciary plays against a tyrannical regime.”


“This country has seen many ups and downs. Over the past 60-70 years, we have seen judgements full of situation in which the executive has gone far beyond its legitimate sphere. If you have to protect the citizens against tyrannical regimes, you need a judiciary. The entire chapter on Fundamental Rights will be rendered meaningless without an independent judiciary.

“Principle of independence of judiciary was not meant for personal benefits of judges but was created to protect humans against abuses of power,” the CJI said.

He said that everything is regulated under Constitution and appointment of judges is no exception.

“The Supreme Court has had many occasions to interpret this provision of appointment of judges. The much-maligned collegium system has also been evolved while interpreting this provision,” he said.

“If you talk of independent judiciary, you cannot have a judiciary which will depend on the executive for discharge of its functions. Judiciary must have complete freedom to decide who should be the judge to hear a matter,” the CJI said.

He said that issue of promotion of judges must be based on objective factors and the question of accountability of judges on ethical and professional behaviour must be dealt by a fully impartial organ ensuring due process of law.

“If the proceedings against judges are taken up by the politicians or bureaucracy, it would seriously infringe upon the independence of the judiciary,” he said.

Thakur also said that the judiciary is a “guardian” of the rights of the people and government has to respect judgements given by the judiciary.

He also advocated for complete separation of judiciary from the executive.

Besides Thakur, veteran journalist Kuldip Nayar also addressed the gathering.

<<<<<<<<<<< By: PTI | New Delhi | Published:December 1, 2016 10:19 pm >>>>>>>


In Deep Reading:-

  1. Of Indian CORRUPT JUDGES COLLEGIUM:- Six wise men of judiciary and an elephantine task – 30 Nov 2016
  2. Justice G.P. Shivaprakash’s 5 Roles in JUDICIAL Layout

  3. Supreme Court must uphold the rule of law. Justice was sent on leave in 1990 by then CJI


  5. ‘IN RE -Vs.- BLOG PUBLISHED BY JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU’; ‘Suo Moto Contempt(Criminal) 4 OF 2016’ & ‘Suo Moto Contempt(Criminal) 5 OF 2016′”

  6. Who Will Guard The Guardians: A Glimpse At The Confrontation Of Justice Katju’s Contempt -By: Pawan Reley | November 24, 2016


  8. “‘Treat contempt with contempt: Contempt’- ‘Notice Against SCI Retired Justice Markandey Katju’”- 24 Nov 2016

  9. An ill-judged conflict – 24 Nov 2016

  10. Complaint against “‘Chief Minister of Karnataka Siddaramaiah’, ‘Home Minister G. Parameshwara’, ‘DGIG of Karnataka Police’, ‘Police Commissioner of Bangalore N.S.Meghrik’, ‘Karnataka I.P.S Officers including IPS officers posted in Intelligence, CID, CCB Departments of Karnataka’, ‘Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Subhro Kamal Mukherjee’, and ‘unknown past officers’ -18th November 2016


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

India’s West Bengal Chief Minister Miss Mamata Banerjee refuses to leave office over army deployment at toll plazas – 2nd December 2016

The Army said they were conducting routine exercise with full knowledge and coordination with West Bengal police

After a high drama over “deployment of army” at certain toll plazas in West Bengal, Chief Minister decided to stay put at the state secretariat ‘Nabanna’ on Thursday night, even after the force was removed from anear it as per her demand.

“I am the custodian of common people. So I can’t leave them insecured. I will stay put here for the whole night and observe the situation,” Banerjee told reporters at around 1.30 AM.

About her demand that she would leave the office only when Armymen were removed from the second Hooghly bridge near Nabanna, she said, “these people may have gone. But they are there in 18 other districts.”

Sometime before her press meet, journalists went to thenear Nabanna and found that the Armymen were no longer there.

A temporary shed set up for them was also removed.

There was no official version of the about the removal.

Accusing the Centre of deploying the at toll plazas in without informing the state government, Banerjee had refused to leave the office till the Armymen were withdrawn from the at second Hooghly bridge.

The said they were conducting routine exercise with full knowledge and coordination withpolice.

conducting routine exercise with full knowledge & coord with WB Police. Speculation oftaking over incorrect,” the Eastern command said on Twitter.

“Routine exercise in all NE states. In Assam@18 places, Arunanchal@13, WB@19, Manipur@6, Nagaland@5, Meghalaya@5, Tripura & Mizoram@1”, it said.

The Kolkata police, however, said they have raised objection to this exercise due to security reasons and traffic problem.

exercise at was objected to in writing by Kolkata Police, citing security reasons & traffic inconvenience,” the city police said on Twitter.

The drama unfolded in the evening when Banerjee alleged that deployment was done in toll plazas without informing the state government and described it as “unprecedented” and “a very serious situation worse than Emergency”.

She claimed that people got panicky due to deployment of at toll plazas.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Press Trust of India  |  Kolkata December 2, 2016 Last Updated at 02:22 IST >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Indian Supreme Court Commands Subjects To Become Constitutional Patriots; Advent Of Judgocracy? 1st December 2016

The Supreme Court in a PIL filed by Shyam Narayan Chouksey, awaiting response from the Government, laid down 7 interim measures to secure respect for National Anthem by the citizens. A friend at bar wrote on his blog that how the order is illegal and amounts to judicial censorship and another wrote on how it is judge centric and the same judge in a similar petition by the same petitioner had passed a similar order in his term as a judge in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Readers may also read the advisory issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in this context and a three Sections long statute book called Prevention of insults to National Honour Act, 1971 to have an overall backdrop of what it is about. My endeavour however here is questioning borrowing of a wonderful doctrine of law in an absurd manner i.e. Constitutional Patriotism.


The order in direction no.(c) speaks – “National Anthem or a part of it shall not be printed on any object and also never be displayed in such a manner at such places which may be disgraceful to its status and tantamount to disrespect. It is because when the National Anthem is sung, the concept of protocol associated with it has its inherent roots in National identity, National integrity and Constitutional Patriotism.” Further after quoting Article 51(1)(a) of the Constitution it says – “Be it stated, a time has come, the citizens of the country must realize that they live in a nation and are duty bound to show respect to National Anthem which is the symbol of the Constitutional Patriotism and inherent national quality. It does not allow any different notion or the perception of individual rights, that have individually thought of have no space. The idea is constitutionally impermissible.” The Court therefore brings in, perhaps for the first time a brilliant phenomenon of law called Constitutional Patriotism but in relation with the National Anthem and calls it as a symbol of Constitutional Patriotism. The doctrine was born in postwar West Germany. Political philosopher Dolf Sternberger, a pupil of Hannah Arendt, coined it in the late 1970s and it was subsequently taken up by Jürgen Habermas who attempted to propose a plausible form of collective identification for Germany and for the European Union. In general, the concept of Constitutional Patriotism designates an idea that political attachment ought to center on the norms, the values, and, more indirectly, the procedures of a liberal democratic constitution. Thus, political allegiance is owed, primarily, neither to a national culture (liberal nationalism) nor to “the worldwide community of human beings,” as, for instance, Martha Nussbaum’s conception of cosmopolitanism puts it. It is here, when Justice Dipak Misra makes the first mistake. Justice Misra uses national identity, national integrity and constitutional patriotism collectively to find the inherent roots of the protocol securing respect for the National Anthem which is precisely why Constitutional Patriotism is different from nationalism. Constitutional Patriotism, as Patchen Markell puts out in his 2000 paper, is different from national identity and a particular political morality and works though in the same field is not exactly an attachment or an identity or a resistance to identification. The logical question which pops up here is whether Constitutional Patriotism is a kind of a civic loyalty or a particularist loyalty or as the critics say, is merely an aspirational oxymoron. In my view, the root understanding of the doctrine lies in the overall purpose it tends to serve, its consequences and specifities. Please note that Constitutional Patriotism is not simply a functional substitute of nationalism as Justice Dipak Misra wrote and is not a variety of Political Liberalism which Rawls has specifically defined. The purpose of Constitutional Patriotism is not a statist nationalism or surrender of political will, but to cultivate a sense of devotion towards constitutional requirements. It serves as a doctrinal tool towards achieving and maintaining a democratic political rule, which is only possible under a rule of Constitution and not of political will. The doctrine suggests that a particular form of political democratic rule as laid down by the Constitution shall prevail which demands cooperation by the state subjects in form of patriotism not only towards the state but towards the Constitution. It is again here, when Justice Misra’s understanding fails us when he treats National Anthem as a symbol of Constitutional Patriotism. Justice Misra further used an interesting term ‘inherent national quality’, which subject to my limits of comprehension is beyond the Constitution completely. The idea of commitment towards Constitution or a sense of attachment to constitutional norms cannot be compelling in nature. And that is precisely why, respect towards Constitution and its ideals and institutions, is a Fundamental Duty. The state may seek attention of its subjects towards respect and earn it, but cannot compel respect. It is trite law that the founding fathers and mother did not deliberately insert Fundamental Duties in Chapter III to make them not enforceable per se. Had the intention been to make duties enforceable like rights, the framers of the Constitution and the Judiciary later on would have interpreted so. There are decorated rules and a dedicated statute book to avoid insult to National symbols but the Constitution has not commanded anywhere to force a citizen to surrender one’s individual political will in lieu of legitimate exercise of power. Justice Misra has banned commercial exploitation to give financial advantage or any kind of benefit. He has also banned any dramatization and National Anthem cannot be included as a part of any variety show. Infact he makes it almost a thought crime by writing “To think of a dramatized exhibition of the National Anthem is absolutely inconceivable.” National Anthem or its part cannot now be printed on any object or displayed in any manner disgraceful to its status and tantamount to disrespect. All cinema halls nationwide shall now play the anthem before feature films starts with National Flag in the backdrop and all present must stand up while the entry and exit doors remain closed. (It will definitely better than the jewellery ads and the typical Don’t Smoke ads) Leaping ahead, an abridged version of National Anthem for whatever reason is also banned which is against the advisory policy drafted by the MHA, as referred earlier in this piece. I ask myself, perhaps and I want you to think, is this Constitutional Patriotism or a national anthem a symbol of it? I leave it to one’s wisdom, and perhaps, Supreme Court’s judge centric will, as to whether one is a Patriot or a Nationalist or now, a Constitutional Patriot and if one is, is the State’s label a pre requisite for it? The judgment and final order will speak a lot. Hopefully it will incorporate what Bijoe Emmanuel and Naveen Jindal cases held. Till then, Fingers crossed!

Namit Saxrena

Namit Saxena is a Lawyer practicing in the Supreme Court of India. [The opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of LiveLaw and LiveLaw does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same] This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation. Topics:Constitutional Patriots Insult To National Anthem Judgocracy Justice Amitava Roy Justice Dipak Misra National Anthem Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971 Supreme Court of India.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< By: Namit Saxena | December 1, 2016 >>>>>>>>>>

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/court-commands-subjects-become-constitutional-patriots-advent-judgocracy/

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Why No “CORRUPT SCI JUDGES Collegium Recommendation Yet To Fill 7 SC Vacancies: Law Ministry” – 29 Nov 2016

Justice T S Thakur and Narendra Modi

“The government is being unfairly accused of delaying appointment of judges while we have done our best. We appointed 120 judges to the High Courts this year, the second highest so far. 121 was appointed in 2013. This is against an annual average of just 80 appointments since 1990. We are saying this after pulling out records since 1990”, Law Ministry source.

In a fresh round of tiff over “delay” in judges appointment, the Law Ministry today took objection to Chief Justice T S Thakur’s criticism of the government on the issue at a time when it was “doing its best”.

Significantly, highly placed sources in the ministry also questioned the SC collegium’s non-recommendation of any names yet against vacancy of 7 judges in the Supreme Court, 290 names for High Courts and non-appointment of 4,937 judges to the subordinate judiciary.

“The government is being unfairly accused of delaying appointment of judges while we have done and are doing our best. We appointed 120 judges to the High Courts this year, the second highest so far. 121 was appointed in 2013. This is against an annual average of just 80 appointments since 1990. We are saying this after pulling out records since 1990”, the source said.

The ministry’s clarification comes two days after Constitution Day heated exchanges between the CJI and Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad. Both had taken on one another at several public functions organized as part of Constitution Day on November 26 warning each other to stay within the confines of the ‘Lakshman rekha’ as drawn by the Constitution and not to interfere into respective spheres.

“There are seven vacancies in Supreme Court..no names recommended yet by the collegium..one vacancy is more than a year old. Another vacancy nine months…another five months. Two of two months two more of one month. Why is the collegium sitting on them without suggesting any names”? asked the source.

“You talk of 430 HC vacancies. But out of that no recommendations have come so far from High Courts for 279 vacancies. There are 4,937 vacancies of lower court judges. State or central government has no role in it but the HCs. Why they are not being filled?”, the source asked adding records also show that 32 to 35% vacancies have always been the norm.

In Constitution Day comments, CJI Thakur had once again expressed his concern over increasing vacancies at various courts, including the vacancy of 500 judges in HCs and urged the Centre to intervene at the earliest in the interest of the judiciary.

In Constitution Day comments, CJI Thakur had once again expressed his concern over increasing vacancies at various courts, including the vacancy of 500 judges in HCs and urged the Centre to intervene at the earliest in the interest of the judiciary.

“What do I tell now on the issue. I have been telling again and again and repeated it various times. 500 Judges posts are vacant in the High Courts. They are not being filled. Presently, there are several vacant court rooms in India, but no judges available. A large number of proposals are still pending and hope the government will intervene to end this crisis,” CJI Thakur had said.

“Several tribunals are without judges and I am pained to send my retired colleagues there. Tribunals are not equipped and no retired SC judge wants to head tribunal,” he said. Three days back, standing by its decision to refer back for reconsideration to supreme court the names of 43 candidates for appointment as judges in high courts, the Centre has said in the parliament that the decision was based on “adverse intelligence reports and serious nature of complaints” against them. Minister of state for law PP Chaudhary told the Rajya Sabha in a written reply yesterday: “The major reasons for referring back 43 recomendees to the Supreme Court collegium on the appointment of judges are views of consultee judges, views of constitutional authorities, adverse intelligence bureau inputs, serious nature of complaints received against recommendees. Out of the 43 names returned to it by the government for reconsideration, the Supreme Court collegium has reiterated its recommendation for 37, deferred three proposals while three other names are still with it”. On November 18, fresh confrontation broke out between the Supreme Court collegium and the Centre with Chief Justice T S Thakur firmly telling Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi today that the collegium has reiterated the names of all 43 judges for the High Courts whose candidature were sent back for reconsideration to the collegium by the Centre two weeks ago. SC HEARING BACKGROUND The CJI had slammed the Centre for attempting of trying to bring the judiciary to a grinding halt by delaying appointment of judges, the Centre had on November 11 told the CJI-led bench that 34 judges have been appointed to the High Courts. Appearing for Centre Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said out of 77 names recommended by collegium, 43 names have been sent back for reconsideration. After the AG submitted a list regarding the appointments, CJI Thakur had perused it and said the collegium will meet on November 15 and a detailed order will be passed later in open court. It is to be noted that Rohatgi had in October 28 sought one more chance to “come up with something positive” on judges appointments defusing the volatile situation and preventing the summoning of the top officials of the PMO and justice ministry. “Please do not issue notice now. Kindly post it after vacations by then somepositive steps would have been taken”, Rohatgi had assured after which the CJI softened down a bit earlier. “In Allahabad, out of a sanctioned strength of 165 there are only 77 judges. In Karnataka High Court, an entire floor of courts are locked because there are no judges. Once we had a situation where we had judges but no court rooms. But now there are courtrooms but no judges. You may now as well close court rooms down and lock justice out. You can have the institution called the judiciary locked”, an angry CJI had said. The scathing remarks began when Rohatgi began reading out the status report on judicial appointments and started off by saying that it had cleared two out of eight recommendations. This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation. Topics:Appointment of Judges Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi Collegium System Judges Appointment judicial appointments Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad Supreme Court of India

<<<<<<<<<<<< By: LiveLaw News Network | November 29, 2016 >>>>>>>

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/no-collegium-recommendation-yet-fill-7-sc-vacancies-law-ministry/Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/no-collegium-recommendation-yet-fill-7-sc-vacancies-law-ministry/

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Of Indian CORRUPT JUDGES COLLEGIUM:- Six wise men of judiciary and an elephantine task – 30 Nov 2016

As children, we had heard the story about six wise men, each of whom thought he knew everything. Their boastful claims reached the king’s ears. He decided to take a public test. Keeping an elephant inside a tent, he blindfolded the wise men and asked them to enter the tent through six different doors.

They were allowed to touch and feel the elephant. They were to use their vast knowledge to tell the assembled people what they found inside the tent. We know the rest of the story which narrates the hilariously different objects the wise men imagined to be inside the tent.

There are six wise men in the judiciary and the government – the CJI, the next four senior judges of the Supreme Court and the law minister. They are all over 62 years in age, with nearly four decades of professional experience in the field of law.

The five judges are in the SC collegium and in the past have headed collegiums in high courts. They perform the unenviable task of selecting people with honesty, competence and rectitude for appointment as judges of constitutional courts.

The law minister too has first-hand experience about selection of judges. In addition, he as a lawyer is aware of the manner of selection of judges and the lacunae in the system. He also has vast experience in handling politically sensitive legal cases.

In December last year, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice J S Khehar, the next Chief Justice of India, took note of growing criticism of the opaqueness and arbitrary procedure adopted by the collegium and ordered redrafting of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for selection of persons for appointment as judges. Almost a year has passed and the task has turned elephantine.

The five-judge constitution bench had its contribution in catalysing circumstances to make the task of finalising MoP an unenviable one. Earlier, the MoP was drafted by the government in consultation with the CJI. But the five-judge bench mandated that the government would redraft the MoP in consultation with the CJI, who had to convey the unanimous view of the collegium members. Unanimity has been eluding the six wise men for nearly a year. The draft MoP has been tossed between the executive and the judiciary a couple of times. But since the first week of August, it has been resting with the collegium.

The five senior-most judges of the SC, including the CJI, have on a daily basis judicially advised and coerced warring litigants to sit across table to discuss and narrow down their differences. These five wise men are discovering a dark truth about life in the last one year – what is probably easy to sermonise while presiding over benches and armed with constitutional powers is not so easy when they themselves sit together to find common ground on MoP.

One wise man among the five in the SC has serious differences with the collegium’s functional procedure. He says that views expressed by individual members, even if pertinent and worth considering, are brushed aside or summarily rejected by the majority. He stopped attending collegium meetings. Instead, he decided to pen down his views on the files after the four others discussed issues and recorded a decision. He says he is doing so to subject his recorded views to scrutiny if ever such an occasion arises.

We asked a majority of collegium members a simple question: Is it such a difficult task for six wise men to finalise transparent and uniform selection criteria for selection of judges to the SC and HCs? They said it was rather sad that such experienced people were finding it difficult to crystallise their views and reach common ground on this issue. How long will it take to finalise?

The law minister feels satisfied that despite non-finalisation of MoP, the government has appointed 120 judges to the SC and HCs, the second highest number since 1990. He says the government has sent the draft MoP to the collegium three and a half months ago. There is no response yet, he laments. The stagnancy on MoP does not augur well for the judiciary as an institution. More so, when nearly three crore cases are pending in the three-tier justice delivery system. What does not help is the vacancy of 500 judges in HCs and 5,000 in trial courts.

This grim scenario is threatening to envelop the justice delivery system that had long shed its swiftness. Instead of focusing on finding a solution to the stalemate, the CJI, the law minister and the attorney general were seen reminding each other about the constitutional ‘laxman rekha’ for every organ of governance.

Democracy and judiciary are critically dependent on the oxygen called people’s faith. Both must remove systemic blindfolds and work towards streamlining the judges’ appointment procedure. The public is keenly watching the six wise men’s experiments with an elephant called MoP.

    Stay updated on the go with Times of India News App. Click here to download it for your device.



    <<<<<<<<<< , TNN | Nov 28, 2016, 03.58AM . IST>>>>>>>>


    Leave a comment

    Filed under Uncategorized

    Justice G.P. Shivaprakash’s 5 Roles in JUDICIAL Layout


    Links to all Files , Evidences will be given shortly. 25 July.2012

    Justice G.P. Shivaprakash’s Role in  JUDICIAL Layout: Karnataka High Court Judge & Up-Lokayukta

    A ] LA Act was amended in 1984 to bring LA for HBCS into Part-VII for Company Purpose.
    Accordingly Jud Emp HBCS signed Agreement in 1988. Same was presented to HC in Land Conversion case to S. Rajendra Babu.  He did not take Notice. Society time & again gas narrated in WPs of Agreement.
    B] SCI & Kar  HC held such Agreement signed is to acquire for Company. LA was set aside.
    C] Society schematically violated all Terms of Agreement & every Law by Judgments; which it adduces before Up-Lokayukta, Kar HC in 40994/02.
    D] It even received Compensation for 87 Acres of Lands acquired under Rule 10[B] of LA Company Rules. Kar HC in Amarjyothi HBCS set aside LA, as Rangadhama Setty, President…

    View original post 2,621 more words

    Leave a comment

    Filed under Uncategorized

    Supreme Court must uphold the rule of law. Justice was sent on leave in 1990 by then CJI


    Chief Justice of India’s STATEMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT BAR on 20-07-1990 [ Read More ]
    The Supreme Court must uphold the rule of law. It is, therefore, necessary that those who uphold the rule of law must live by law and judges must, therefore, be obliged to live according to law.

    Involvement in any investigation on the conduct of a sitting Supreme Court Judge on such matters as aforesaid is embarrassing in the circumstances and the background in which these questions have arisen in the instant case. For one who should attempt to uphold the rule of law, it is embarrassing to be involved in such a dispute.

    I have, on these aspects after looking into the matter and the points involved, no doubt that those who aspire to uphold the rule of law must strive to live according to law and they necessarily expose the selves to…

    View original post 173 more words

    Leave a comment

    Filed under Uncategorized