RAPE of COURTS by CORRUPT IMMORAL NEPOTIC JUDGES Vs Few GODly JUDGES; Corrupt CJI Kabeer Vs Three Meritorious Judges:-
|  Three Chief Justices found “not fit” for elevation to SC, ignored by Collegium; Ignored CJ Bhattacharya creates ripples by writing hard hitting letter to CJI: NEW DELHI: If any Judge is believed to be corrupt, he should be named in public said Chief Justice of India on 26th Nov. 2011 in Law Day speech and also said take stand and tell his name to chief Justice.”
 Former Chief Justice SH Kapadia in his hard hitting speech said Judiciary too should be subjected to fair criticism. CJI said that every Judge in India is a Public servant and thus accountable to public and can’t claim immunity of his misconduct.
 The appointment of Judges by collegiums is not inspiring confidence amongst general public. The general choice is entirely subjective and preference class is Judges relative whether he has practice at bar or not; kinsmanship is a qualification these days, thus widely condemned and another such cat was out of the bag recently.
 Since the Govt. has absolutely no say in the appointment which is entirely against the Democratic structure. It is govt. which is accountable to the people and to ignore its say is not a correct view point which needs to be corrected and National judicial commission or a Judges appointment committee should be formed.
 The news which is creating ripples in the Judicial institution is a letter of Gujarat Chief Justice Bhasker Bhattacharya written to the President of India, Prime Minister of India and Chief Justice of India.
 The letter has exposed the collegium system . The Chief Justice of Gujarat claims that he has been victimized by Supreme Court collegium by not recommending his name for elevation as a Supreme Court judge along with two other Judges namely Chief Justice Barren Ghosh and Justice Mohit S Shah, who all have been ignored.
 Chief Justice Mohit S Shah of Bombay High Court, Chief Justice Bhattacharya of Gujrat High Court and Chief Justice Barin Gosh of Uttrakhand who were the three senior Chief Justices were ignored and were not elevated as Supreme Court Judges.
 Reportedly Chief Justice of India Altams Kabir wrote a letter to Prime Minister of India conveying unanimous decision of Supreme Court collegium for appointment Justice Kurien and Justice Pinaki Ghose to Supreme Court superseding these three Judges.
 …” The collegium has unanimously taken the view that they are not suitable to hold the office of Supreme Court Judge and their elevation as such would prove to be counter productive and not conducive to administration of Justice” said Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir in one of his letters, reportedly.
 ..”The collegium has not recommended the names of these three Chief Justices for good reasons and after taking into consideration all relevant factor, including their merit ability and seniority at all levels.” it said.
 Chief Justice Gujarat High Court Bhattacharya has written a 10 pages letter to Chief Justice of India and others.
 In the said letter Chief Justice of Gujarat demanded to show “the material” which led the collegium of Supreme court to take adverse decision on his” competency and character”.
 Chief Justice Bhattacharya wrote to CJI Kabir; claiming real reason for being denied place in SC was opposition to elevation of Kabir’s sister.
 Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya has complained that Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir — who retires on July 18 — blocked his elevation to the Supreme Court earlier this year because, as a member of the collegium of the Calcutta High Court, he had opposed the appointment of CJI Kabir’s lawyer sister to the Bench, a decision he said was tantamount to “rape” of the court.
 Exactly one week before the tenure of the current Chief Justice of India, Altamas Kabir, is to end, a letter written by the current Chief Justice of Gujarat, Justice Bhattacharya, has raised serious questions about how judges are appointed to the higher judiciary. The letter, excerpts of which were published by a national daily, was presumably written after the Supreme Court collegium rejected the elevation of Justice Bhattacharya stating that such an elevation would be, “counter-productive and not conducive to administration of justice.”
 A week after the collegium’s views were made public, on March 19, 2013 Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya wrote a 10-page letter to the CJI, the President of India and the country’s Prime Minister.
 In his letter, Justice Bhattacharya has demanded to be shown “the material” which led the collegium to take a decision on his, “competence and character”. He also claims that the “real” reason for the collegium’s comments was the fact that he had opposed the elevation of CJI Kabir’s sister, Shukla Kabir Sinha, to the Calcutta High Court.
 Apart from the veiled claim that it was this opposition which prevented Justice Bhattacharya from reaching the Supreme Court, what also deserves attention are the objections raised by Justice Bhattacharya to the elevation of the CJI’s sister. These objections provide some idea as to what factors are considered while appointing members of the Bar to the higher judiciary.
 For instance, one of the points raised by Justice Bhattacharya relate to the annual salary drawn by Justice Sinha, who was 58 years old when applying for the post of judge. He writes,
 In my view as an advocate who at the age of 58 years is just capable of earning a net amount of Rs. 88,000 from practice should in no case be recommended for judgeship. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a High Court chaprasi gets more than Rs. 13,000 per month as salary, which is equivalent to Rs. 1,56,000 per annum which is almost double the income of Mrs Shukla Kabir Sinha.
 Justice Bhattacharya also questions the time taken by Justice Sinha to complete her education, noting that Sinha took,
 “Four years for passing BA examination …. and five years for getting MA degree after graduation, although the usual time taken for clearing these examinations is three years and two years respectively”
 Another point raised by Justice Bhattacharya was the age of CJI Kabir’s sister; at the age of 59, Sinha would have a tenure of barely three years in the High Court (in fact, she retired earlier this year). Such an elevation, according to Justice Bhattacharya, would “..give a wrong signal and people would lose faith in the judiciary and the collegium system.”
 He also went on to write that failure to raise any objections against Sinha’s elevation would amount to, “closing my eyes while my mother was being raped.”
 “I don’t have a personal inimical feeling against Mrs Sinha who is just like my sister… However, as I treat the HC to which I belong for the full time-being as my mother, I earnestly believed that to elevate Mrs Sinha at the age of 59, there is no instance in the past of elevation of a Judge from the Bar at the age of 59 years… would give a wrong signal and people would lose faith in the judiciary and the collegium system… For the above reasons, I made my observations which, however, didn’t get the approval of the Chief Justice of the Calcutta HC and of Judge Pinaki Chandra Ghose, who was the other member of the collegium and who has superseded me this time,” the letter reads. “So far as I can remember, Justice Pinaki Ghose in his recommendation observed that if Shukla Kabir is elevated as a judge, she would be an asset to the judiciary.”
 Justice Bhattacharya has also written, “When time came for selection of Smt Shukla Kabir Sinha as a Judge of the HC, I was pressured to agree to such a proposal as a member of the collegium, but I thought it would amount to committing rape of the Calcutta HC, which was like my mother and if I didn’t raise any objections that would amount to closing my eyes while my mother was being raped. As a result, I used rather strong words so that by looking at the nature of words used by me, the person responsible for sending such a recommendation would have a second thought… Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful in resisting the rape of my mother in spite of my earnest endeavour. However, at the time of my death, I will not repent that I ever compromised with wrong for the sake of my career.”
 On September 13, 2010, the CJI’s sister, Shukla Kabir Sinha, was appointed to the bench of the Calcutta HC after the HC collegium ignored Justice Bhattacharya’s written submission on why she should not be appointed to the post.
 CJI Kabir — then a senior judge of the apex court — was a member of the SC collegium that considered the HC’s recommendation. However, sources said he had recused himself from the meeting.
 Reportedly the Prime Minister’s spokesperson said: “The letter was addressed to the Chief Justice of India, and the PMO had no role to play in it as appointments of judges are decided by the collegium.”
 Justice Bhattacharya has asked that his letter be shown to all members of the collegium. He has also requested that he be shown “the material which led you (CJI Kabir) to take such a decision regarding my competence and character”. He has said that he will resign if he is given “justifiable reasons”.
 Justice Bhattacharya has also given his reasons for opposing the CJI’s sister’s name for judgeship, including what he has called her poor practice, reflected in her annual income-tax statements.
 Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya also referred to “another recent incident” that he says could have made the collegium reject him.
 According to Justice Bhattacharya, a former Gujarat HC Chief Justice who is now in the Supreme Court withdrew an excess amount of Rs 54,650 as TA/DA which is not permissible without furnishing proof.
 “There are several other honourable judges who had withdrawn similar amounts in excess of the rules. After receiving such clarification from the Centre, I, as the chief justice of the Gujarat HC, placed the matter in the Standing Committee of seven judges and they unanimously resolved that the honourable judges… should pay back the excess amount,” his letter reads.
 As per the letter, when the judge, who is now in the Supreme Court, was requested to repay the excess amount, his office wrote to the HC registrar telling him “not to make any such unnecessary and unwarranted correspondence.”
 “As your younger brother, I seek advice from you as to what should be my duty as the present CJ if I find that a former Chief Justice of the High Court who is now judge of the SC is found to have withdrawn excess amount not intentionally but due to some ambiguity in existing rules?” the CJ asks the CJI.
 These controversies shatter the faith of the common man in the appointment process for High Court and Supreme Court Judges and it is high time that the appointment of Judges goes in the hands of a committee or a National judicial Commission.
Courtesy: News Articlehttp://www.journeyline.in/newsdet.aspx?q=27039