Home »  Blog »   »  What The SC Judges Must Do

What The SC Judges Must Do

Fali S. Nariman in the Indian Express speaks for all when he says:

"it is not the law minister alone who was rebuffed in the Rajya Sabha on August 3, when the House would not grant him leave to introduce the Judges (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Bill 2009. It was a rebuke also to the judges of the higher judiciary; they were pulled down a peg or two for having expressed their readiness to disclose their assets if there was a law to that effect enacted by Parliament, but only if that law ensured the confidentiality of such declaration."

Arun Jaitley, the leader of opposition in the Rajya Sabha had pointed out in the Rajya Sabha that this is the " first time in history that before introduction in Parliament the Bill has been circulated to the judicial institution itself, and it is on their objection that this clause 6 has been introduced":

I have particular objection to clause 6 of the Bill. Sir, clause 6 of the Bill specifically states, and, I am reading clause 6, "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a declaration made by a Judge to a competent authority shall not be made public or disclosed, and, shall not be called for, or, put into question by any citizen, court or authority, and, save as provided by sub-section 2, no Judge shall be subjected to any enquiry or query in relation to the contents of the declaration by any person."

In the Rajya Sabha itself, Ram Jethmalani had gone on to say: 

Now, this privileged position, which the Judges are seeking from the Executive, makes them totally subservient to the Executive. This demolishes the whole vision of our founding fathers that the independence of the Judiciary is a must.  You are destroying the independence of the judiciary. This Bill is a conspiracy in corruption. 

Fali S. Nariman now suggests a way out in the Indian Express:

If the credibility of the higher judiciary is to be restored, as I believe it must — since without the higher judiciary our Constitution simply cannot work — it is essential that every judge of the Supreme Court set an example and voluntarily make a public disclosure of his (or her) assets on the website of the Supreme Court, law or no law. This would then be dutifully followed by judges of the high courts on the salutary principle stated in the Bhagavad Gita: “Whatsoever great men doeth, that other men also do; the standard they setteth up, by that the people go.” 

...I would respectfully beseech the judges of our highest judiciary not to rely on the technicalities of the RTI Act or to depend on the executive to extricate them from their present delicate no-win situation. Public confidence in the administration of justice by the higher judiciary is of paramount concern.

More here

Fali S. Nariman in the Indian Express speaks for all when he says:

"it is not the law minister alone who was rebuffed in the Rajya Sabha on August 3, when the House would not grant him leave to introduce the Judges (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Bill 2009. It was a rebuke also to the judges of the higher judiciary; they were pulled down a peg or two for having expressed their readiness to disclose their assets if there was a law to that effect enacted by Parliament, but only if that law ensured the confidentiality of such declaration."

Arun Jaitley, the leader of opposition in the Rajya Sabha had pointed out in the Rajya Sabha that this is the " first time in history that before introduction in Parliament the Bill has been circulated to the judicial institution itself, and it is on their objection that this clause 6 has been introduced":

I have particular objection to clause 6 of the Bill. Sir, clause 6 of the Bill specifically states, and, I am reading clause 6, "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a declaration made by a Judge to a competent authority shall not be made public or disclosed, and, shall not be called for, or, put into question by any citizen, court or authority, and, save as provided by sub-section 2, no Judge shall be subjected to any enquiry or query in relation to the contents of the declaration by any person."

In the Rajya Sabha itself, Ram Jethmalani had gone on to say: 

Now, this privileged position, which the Judges are seeking from the Executive, makes them totally subservient to the Executive. This demolishes the whole vision of our founding fathers that the independence of the Judiciary is a must.  You are destroying the independence of the judiciary. This Bill is a conspiracy in corruption. 

Fali S. Nariman now suggests a way out in the Indian Express:

If the credibility of the higher judiciary is to be restored, as I believe it must — since without the higher judiciary our Constitution simply cannot work — it is essential that every judge of the Supreme Court set an example and voluntarily make a public disclosure of his (or her) assets on the website of the Supreme Court, law or no law. This would then be dutifully followed by judges of the high courts on the salutary principle stated in the Bhagavad Gita: “Whatsoever great men doeth, that other men also do; the standard they setteth up, by that the people go.” 

...I would respectfully beseech the judges of our highest judiciary not to rely on the technicalities of the RTI Act or to depend on the executive to extricate them from their present delicate no-win situation. Public confidence in the administration of justice by the higher judiciary is of paramount concern.

More here

READ MORE IN:

Download the Outlook ​Magazines App. Six magazines, wherever you go! Play Store and App Store

THE LATEST ISSUE
CLICK IMAGE FOR CONTENTS
  • PHOTO
  • NEWS
  • BLOGS
  • LATEST


Online Casino Betway Banner
Advertisement

OUTLOOK TOPICS :

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

or just type initial letters