Dear Visitors: An Appeal: It is a Draft Vision:
Please do send “Amemds & Articles”.
“To Demolish Judgments which have given Un-Constitutional Privileges by Judges to Protect Judges” = “Without Such Illegal & Un-constitutional Judgments giving Illegal protection; 867 Judges would not have VENTURED to form JUDICIAL Layout” = Courtesy:- “JUDICIAL Layout; Crimes & Criminals”
[ As mentioned in top-of web-home-Page http://indiancorruptjudges.com/ ; that “MESSAGE: What Is ILLEGAL for Law MAKERS + BUREAUCRATS + MINISTERS is LEGAL for We JUDGES”
……………………………………….. Constitutional & Penal Crimes 867 Judges have committed to ‘Form JUDICIAL Layout; from land acquisition to Forging Sale deeds of 2,400 sites’ are narrated in Home Page in kind of ‘RESOLUTIONS’.
To prosecute JUDICIAL Layout through Supreme Court or any court; apart from seeking ‘ To Jailing them; we have seek to ‘Demolish All Judgments giving Illegal-kind of Protection ‘ which have encouraged Judges to Indulge in ‘Corrupt, Contempt, Penal Crimes including Conspiracies with Government more so with CM’.
JUDICIAL Layout have all Ingredients & more to Seeking SC to Set aside :-
The Judgments that are to be aside to ‘Bring to JUSTICE the Culprit Judges are as follows;
The 1982, 1993 & 1998 Judgments like ‘Collegium System in Judiciary’ .
Veeraswamy Judgment which makes Police to Seek CJI approval to prosecute any Sitting HC & SC Judges.
Details of above Quoted Judgments; [Under Preparation]; is as follow:-
The Judgments that are to be aside to ‘Bring to JUSTICE the Culprit Judges are as follows;
[ 01 ] S.C. Constitution Bench Judgments:-
[ ] Appointment & Transfer of Judges of Superior Courts
Law Commission of India in its 2008 Report, has Recommended to SC to Reconsider
S.C. Judgments in Re. “S.P. Gupta, Judges’ Case I , Presidential reference Case of 1998”.
A] Case-I:- Judgment @ http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1294854/
These writ petitions filed in different High Courts and transferred to this Court under Article 139 of the Constitution raise issues of great constitutional importance affecting the independence of the judiciary and they have been argued at great length before us. The arguments have occupied as many as thirty five days and they have ranged over a large number of issues comprising every imaginable aspect of the judicial institution, Voluminous written submissions have been filed before us which reflect the enormous industry and vast erudition of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and a large number of authorities, Indian as well as foreign, have been brought to our attention.
[Articles :- GOVERNMENT OF INDIA LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA Report No. 214 …
Who will judge the judges? « LAW RESOURCE INDIA Transfer and Removal of Judges
[ B] Case –II :- Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another Vs. UoI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/10/1993 http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/753224/
A 9 Judge Bench was constituted in pursuance of an order dated October 26, 1990 passed in Subhash Sharma vs. Union of India (AIR 1991 SC 128). The papers of the S.C. Advocate on Record Association vs. Union of India were directed to be placed before learned Chief Justice of India to examine the two questions referred therein namely- the position of the CJI with respect to primacy, and justiciability of fixation of judge’s strength. The Bench in Subhash Sharma’s case which referred the said two questions was of the opinion, that the correctness of the majority view in S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149) required reconsideration by larger Bench. It was in this backdrop that the judgment in Second Judges case was welcomed. In the Second Judges case the Supreme Court held that the opinion of the CJI, for the purposes of Articles 124(2) and 217(1), so given, has primacy in the matter of all appointments: and no appointment can be made by the President under the provisions to the Supreme Court and the High Courts, unless it is in conformity with the final opinion of the CJI formed in the manner indicated. The “manner indicated” was that the opinion given by the CJI in consultative process has to be formed taking into account the views of the two senior most judges of the Supreme Court, and the CJI is also expected to ascertain the views of a Judge of the Supreme Court whose opinion is likely to be significant in adjudging the suitability of the candidate, by reason of the fact that he has come from the same High Court. Similarly in matters relating to the appointment in the High Courts, the CJI is expected to take into account the views of the colleagues in the Supreme Court who are likely to be conversant with the affairs of the concerned High Court. This view of the Supreme Court in Second Judges case rested on the concept of independence of judiciary being the basic feature of the Constitution.
First S.Govind Swaminadhan Memorial Lecture at the Madras High Court Bar in Chennai on 29 January 2010 by Justice J.S. Verma, Former Chief Justice of India …….. “The place of justice is a hallowed place, and therefore not only the Bench, but also the foot space and precincts and purpose thereof ought to be preserved without scandal and corruption”.
Extract fro Judgment:-
In exercise of this power, the President of India has on 23rd July, 1998 made the present reference, which is quoted in extenso:
“WHEREAS the Supreme Court of India has laid down principles and prescribed procedural norms in regard to the appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court [article 124(2) of the Constitution of India], Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court [article 217(1)], and transfer of Judges from one High Court to another [article 222(1)], in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another vs. Union of India reported in AND WHEREAS doubts have arisen about the interpretation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and it is in public interest that the said doubts relating to the appointment and transfer of Judges be resolved;
AND WHEREAS, in view of what is hereinbefore stated, it appears to me that the following questions of law have arisen and are of such a nature and of such public importance that it is despondent to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of India thereon;
NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by clause (1) of article 143 if the Constitution of India, I, K.R. Narayanan, President of India, hereby refer the following questions to the Supreme Court of India for consideration and to report its opinion thereon, namely,:- (1) whether the expression “consultation with the Chief Justice of India” in articles 217(1) and 222(1) requires consultation with a plurality of Judges in the formation of the opinion of the Chief Justice of India or does the sole individual opinion of the Chief Justice of India constitute consultation within the meaning of the said articles;
(2) whether the transfer of judges is judicially reviewable in the light of the observation of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement that “such transfer is not justiciable on any ground” and its further observation that limited judicial review is available in matters of transfer, and the extent and scope of judicial review;
(3) whether article 124(2) as interpreted in the said judgement requires the Chief Justice of India to consult only the two seniormost Judges or whether there should be wider consultation according to past practice;
(4) whether the Chief Justice of India is entitled to act solely in his individual capacity, without consultation with other Judges of the Supreme Court in respect of all materials and information conveyed by the Government of India for non-appointment of a judge recommended for appointment;
(5) whether the requirement of consultation by the Chief Justice of India with his colleagues, who are likely to be conversant with the affairs of the concerned high Court refers to only those Judges who have that High Court as a parent High Court and excludes Judges who had occupied the office of a Judge or Chief Justice of that Court on transfer from their parent or any other Court;
(6) whether in light of the legitimate expectations os senior Judges of the High Court in regard to their appointment to the Supreme Court referred to in the said judgement, the ‘strong cogent reason’ required to justify the departure from the order of the seniority has to be recorded in respect of each such senior Judge, who is overlooked, while making recommendation of a Judge junior to him or her; (7) whether the government is not entitled to require that the opinions of the other consulted Judges be in writing in accordance with the aforesaid Supreme Court judgement and that the same be transmitted to the Government of India by the Chief Justice of India along with his views; (8) whether the Chief Justice of India is not obliged to comply with the norms and the requirement of the consultation process in making his recommendation to the Government of India; (9) whether any recommendations made by the Chief Justice of India without complying with the norms and consultation process are binding upon the Government of India?
New Delhi Narayanan K.R.
Dated: 23.7.1998 President of India.
A flawed mechanism :- In what is known as the Third Judges Case (1998), a nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, exercising its advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 of the Constitution, created the present system of a collegium of the CJI and two senior Judges of the Supreme Court to recommend names for appointment as Judges of the Supreme Court. The Bench created a collegium comprising the CJI and four senior Judges to review recommendations made by a similar collegium in the High Courts in the case of appointment of Judges to these courts.
In the Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs. Union of India – 1993), the Supreme Court had introduced the concept of primacy of the CJI in the matter of recommending persons for appointment to the higher judiciary. It had led to misgivings whether during consultations to select Judges the CJI’s individual opinion, if found arbitrary, could still prevail over that of the government. The President’s reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143, which resulted in the judgment in the Third Judges Case, was a consequence of this apprehension.
However, the performance of the collegium, in the words of former Supreme Court Judge and eminent jurist V.R. Krishna Iyer, has hardly been creditable. “It has often been dilatory, arbitrary, and smeared by favourites,” he said in a recent newspaper article. In his view, judicial selection is not a secret operation; the names proposed must be available for the people to know and respond to.
BitDefender Antivirus Pro 2011 – Search Advisor
This link is safe.
The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 :- The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill tries to lay down enforceable standards of conduct for judges. It also requires judges to declare details of their and their family members’ assets and liabilities. Importantly, it creates mechanisms to allow any person to complain against judges on grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity. Currently, the process of removing judges can only be initiated in Parliament.
The Oversight Committee has non-judicial members. The procedure of the Committee is not an in-house procedure of the judiciary.