In a ruling that seeks to lift the veil of secrecy from judicial functioning, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Supreme Court to disclose two vital pieces of information within 15 days. One, relating to the report of the Madras High Court judge, Justice R Regupathi, who claimed on June 30 that a Union minister had tried to call him over the phone seeking a favourable order in a case being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, and the other concerning the recent appointment of judges.
The CIC has sought from the Supreme Court the name of the Union minister who allegedly approached Justice Regupathi to influence his decision, and the complete correspondence with the Chief Justice of India in the matter.
Justice Regupathi had said in the open court that a Union minister had tried to call him seeking anticipatory bail in favour of a doctor-son duo, who were wanted in connection with the Pondicherry University marksheet scam case. Though the judge named an advocate, who acted as an emissary of the minister, he did not identify the minister.
Days after the startling statement hit the national headlines, Justice Regupathi sent a detailed report to the Madras High Court Chief Justice, HL Gokhale. The report was then forwarded to the Chief Justice of India, KG Balakrishnan.
Now, the CIC has asked that the information relating to the report to be given within 15 days. CIC seeks details of judges’ appointments
New Delhi: The Central Information Commission recently asked the SC to make public the records of appointment of three judges, who superseded their seniors.
Chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah ruled that personal details could be severed but correspondence between authorities relating to appointment of Justices HL Dattu, AK Ganguly and RM Lodha, who superseded Justices AP Shah, AK Patnaik and VK Gupta, should be made public.
RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal had asked for the information but his plea was rejected by the SC registry, saying it did not have the information. Later, it pleaded before the commission that the information was held in fiduciary relationship with the CJI; hence, it could not be given under the RTI Act.
“The recommendation of appointment of justices is decidedly a public activity conducted in the overriding public interest. Hence, the plea of seeking exemption under the definition of fiduciary relationship cannot stand, and even if accepted in technical terms, will not withstand the test of public interest,” the ruling said.
SC counsel Devadutt Kamat said the apex court, in one of its decisions, had held that it was in public interest to keep appointments and transfers from “needless intrusion by strangers and busybodies in the functioning of judiciary”.
However, the CIC’s order overruled the argument, saying there was no embarrassment in disclosure of differences of opinion between judges.
For all your legal requirements, Browse my other websites.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Pendency, Disposal and Requirement - Views of CJI.
CJI Mr.Balakrishnan said,
“About 1.8 crore fresh cases had been filed in courts in 2008, … reflecting a steady increase in the rate of institution of fresh proceedings over the years. Against this, approximately 14,000 judges disposed of 1.7 crore cases in 2008, demonstrating a disposal rate of 1,200 cases per year by each judge. This was achieved notwithstanding the severe shortage of judges and their very heavy workload, abysmal infrastructure and a very challenging environment,” he said in his National Law Day address to the nation. It was this day in 1949 that the Constituent Assembly of India adopted the Constitution
“In all, Indian courts processed some 4.8 crore cases in 2008, which is one of the largest volume faced by any national judicial system. Expert studies have suggested that our judicial strength is only very minimal, and large expansion is required to dispose of this caseload. It is, therefore, quite natural that most cases take several years to be completed. Such is the shortage of judicial officers that, on average, an Indian judge has a total of 25 minutes to devote to each case.”
Justice Balakrishnan expressed concern at the fact that a substantial number of poor people were unable to get court protection owing to the severe shortage of judges. This ‘docket exclusion,’ he said “does not bode well for the country as the affected people may turn to alternative [including violent] means for securing their rights.” There was an urgent need to promote ‘docket inclusion.’ Any meaningful agenda for judicial reforms must account for the twin problem of high pendency as well as the limited access to justice for some sections.
In many cases, undue delay in disposal of cases “is a consequence of hurdles placed in the procedural steps involved in litigation.” Attempts to delay the proceedings should be dealt with firmly, but the desire to improve procedural efficiency should not compromise the quality of justice. “A large portion of the increase in litigation rates can be attributed to stronger remedies that have been introduced through Central and State legislation over the years. In particular, our trial courts are confronted with a disproportionate number of cases involving dishonouring of cheques, motor accident compensation claims, domestic violence and corruption-related cases.”
He said: “A system of planning and management is being developed and recommended to High Courts for their consideration. A National Judicial Infrastructure Plan, a National Judicial Education Strategy and a National Mediation Plan are in different stages of implementation. The results of these massive initiatives have been encouraging.”
“About 1.8 crore fresh cases had been filed in courts in 2008, … reflecting a steady increase in the rate of institution of fresh proceedings over the years. Against this, approximately 14,000 judges disposed of 1.7 crore cases in 2008, demonstrating a disposal rate of 1,200 cases per year by each judge. This was achieved notwithstanding the severe shortage of judges and their very heavy workload, abysmal infrastructure and a very challenging environment,” he said in his National Law Day address to the nation. It was this day in 1949 that the Constituent Assembly of India adopted the Constitution
“In all, Indian courts processed some 4.8 crore cases in 2008, which is one of the largest volume faced by any national judicial system. Expert studies have suggested that our judicial strength is only very minimal, and large expansion is required to dispose of this caseload. It is, therefore, quite natural that most cases take several years to be completed. Such is the shortage of judicial officers that, on average, an Indian judge has a total of 25 minutes to devote to each case.”
Justice Balakrishnan expressed concern at the fact that a substantial number of poor people were unable to get court protection owing to the severe shortage of judges. This ‘docket exclusion,’ he said “does not bode well for the country as the affected people may turn to alternative [including violent] means for securing their rights.” There was an urgent need to promote ‘docket inclusion.’ Any meaningful agenda for judicial reforms must account for the twin problem of high pendency as well as the limited access to justice for some sections.
In many cases, undue delay in disposal of cases “is a consequence of hurdles placed in the procedural steps involved in litigation.” Attempts to delay the proceedings should be dealt with firmly, but the desire to improve procedural efficiency should not compromise the quality of justice. “A large portion of the increase in litigation rates can be attributed to stronger remedies that have been introduced through Central and State legislation over the years. In particular, our trial courts are confronted with a disproportionate number of cases involving dishonouring of cheques, motor accident compensation claims, domestic violence and corruption-related cases.”
He said: “A system of planning and management is being developed and recommended to High Courts for their consideration. A National Judicial Infrastructure Plan, a National Judicial Education Strategy and a National Mediation Plan are in different stages of implementation. The results of these massive initiatives have been encouraging.”
Saturday, November 21, 2009
From medical representative to Chief Justice of a High Court...a long way... of Hon'ble Mr.Justice.Mukhopadhaya
“I started my career as a medical representative, and sold Vicks on the streets of Patna,” recalls justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, who is on his way to mark another milestone as chief justice of the Gujarat high court in a few days.
Justice Mukhopadhaya has been number two in the Madras high court hierarchy for the past 39 months, after being transferred from the Jharkhand high court in August 2006.
It was at the suggestion of justice Mukhopadhaya’s father, an IAS officer, who started practice after his retirement, that this medical representative turned to law and became an advocate in 1979. He was appointed judge of the Patna high court in 1994, and later transferred to the newly formed Jharkhand high court.
In Bihar and Jharkhand, justice Mukhopadhaya is best known for a series of judgments in the fodder scam cases against Lalu Prasad and others.
His toughest days in Tamil Nadu were the four-odd months when, as acting chief justice of the court from December to March 2009, he had to tackle high-voltage lawyers’ agitation on the Sri Lankan Tamil issue. A string of demonstrations, disruptions in court, boycotts, attacks on Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy on February 17 and then the unprecedented violence involving advocates and police on the court campus on February 19, were all seen during his tenure as acting CJ.
A full bench headed by justice Mukhopadhaya ordered the suspension of two senior IPS officers for their role in the February 19 violence. “They were the persons who were at the helm of affairs, and under whose direct supervision the operation was carried out,” the bench said.
When the violence-marred October 2006 Chennai Corporation elections were under judicial scrutiny, a bench headed by him delivered a split verdict. In this order, justice Mukhopadhaya concluded that there was a constitutional bar on courts entertaining PILs in electoral matters.
The ecologically fragile Nilgiris district would remain indebted to him for three verdicts. One, for having imposed a blanket ban on all forms of mining and quarrying operations in the hill district; Two, for banning indiscriminate construction in the Nilgiris. Three, for having attempted to save the Elephant Corridor by banning new constructions and installation of solar/electrical fencing there.
His judgment on the legal status of a child born to a couple before their marriage was also considered an important one. A bench comprising justice Mukhopadhaya and justice V Dhanapalan said: “Though the marriage is said to be irregular, children born out of such marriage would be entitled to claim the benefits of their parent.”
Putting public safety and national security ahead of revenue generation, justice Mukhopadhaya’s bench also banned display of advertisements on private and public transport buses.
Justice Mukhopadhaya’s bench also targeted the offcampus/study centres run by private universities from other states as illegal, and said, “if such centres are allowed to continue, the future of gullible students will be jeopardised.”
Justice Mukhopadhaya has been number two in the Madras high court hierarchy for the past 39 months, after being transferred from the Jharkhand high court in August 2006.
It was at the suggestion of justice Mukhopadhaya’s father, an IAS officer, who started practice after his retirement, that this medical representative turned to law and became an advocate in 1979. He was appointed judge of the Patna high court in 1994, and later transferred to the newly formed Jharkhand high court.
In Bihar and Jharkhand, justice Mukhopadhaya is best known for a series of judgments in the fodder scam cases against Lalu Prasad and others.
His toughest days in Tamil Nadu were the four-odd months when, as acting chief justice of the court from December to March 2009, he had to tackle high-voltage lawyers’ agitation on the Sri Lankan Tamil issue. A string of demonstrations, disruptions in court, boycotts, attacks on Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy on February 17 and then the unprecedented violence involving advocates and police on the court campus on February 19, were all seen during his tenure as acting CJ.
A full bench headed by justice Mukhopadhaya ordered the suspension of two senior IPS officers for their role in the February 19 violence. “They were the persons who were at the helm of affairs, and under whose direct supervision the operation was carried out,” the bench said.
When the violence-marred October 2006 Chennai Corporation elections were under judicial scrutiny, a bench headed by him delivered a split verdict. In this order, justice Mukhopadhaya concluded that there was a constitutional bar on courts entertaining PILs in electoral matters.
The ecologically fragile Nilgiris district would remain indebted to him for three verdicts. One, for having imposed a blanket ban on all forms of mining and quarrying operations in the hill district; Two, for banning indiscriminate construction in the Nilgiris. Three, for having attempted to save the Elephant Corridor by banning new constructions and installation of solar/electrical fencing there.
His judgment on the legal status of a child born to a couple before their marriage was also considered an important one. A bench comprising justice Mukhopadhaya and justice V Dhanapalan said: “Though the marriage is said to be irregular, children born out of such marriage would be entitled to claim the benefits of their parent.”
Putting public safety and national security ahead of revenue generation, justice Mukhopadhaya’s bench also banned display of advertisements on private and public transport buses.
Justice Mukhopadhaya’s bench also targeted the offcampus/study centres run by private universities from other states as illegal, and said, “if such centres are allowed to continue, the future of gullible students will be jeopardised.”
The hon'ble judges of Madras High Court, disclosed their assests.
In a step towards greater transparency and accountability, the Madras High Court on Friday disclosed the assets and liabilities of all its 54 judges on its website, becoming the second HC in the country to do so.
The Kerala HC was the first to declare the assets of its judges on September 30, followed by the Supreme Court that placed details in the public domain on November 2. Though the High Courts of Delhi, Bombay and Punjab & Haryana have already announced that they too would make public their assets, they have not yet implemented the decision.
Starting from Chief Justice HL Gokhale, all the judges of the Madras HC have made exhaustive declarations about their properties, agricultural land holdings, investments and bank holdings.
See the link below to see the assets details:
http://www.hcmadras.tn.nic.in/assetsofjudges.htm
The Kerala HC was the first to declare the assets of its judges on September 30, followed by the Supreme Court that placed details in the public domain on November 2. Though the High Courts of Delhi, Bombay and Punjab & Haryana have already announced that they too would make public their assets, they have not yet implemented the decision.
Starting from Chief Justice HL Gokhale, all the judges of the Madras HC have made exhaustive declarations about their properties, agricultural land holdings, investments and bank holdings.
See the link below to see the assets details:
http://www.hcmadras.tn.nic.in/assetsofjudges.htm
Friday, November 13, 2009
False information given under RTI Act - Fine of Rs.25,000/- is imposed.
The state information commission has imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on a tahsildar in Vandavasi, Tiruvannamalai district, for providing incorrect information about the disbursement of old-age pension in his taluk.
As T Retna Pandian, an activist, had not got the information he sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, he filed an appeal before the state commission. State chief information commissioner S Ramakrishnan and information commissioner G Ramakrishnan, in their order, said, "The collector of Tiruvannamalai will levy the maximum penalty of Rs 25,000, which has become leviable on the Public Information Officer (special tahsildar), remit it in the government account and report the fact to the commission within four weeks of this order." The commission also ordered the collector to depute a senior officer to provide correct information to Pandian, general secretary of 5th Pillar India, a Chennai-based NGO.
Pandian had filed an RTI application in June 2008, seeking details about the beneficiaries of the old-age pension scheme following complaints of political interference in disbursement. "More than 20 people from Vandavasi said their old-age pensions had been stopped as they had not supported a particular candidate in the last local body election. I filed an application seeking details of disbursement of Central and state government sponsored old-age pension schemes. The tahsildar, in his reply on June 27, 2008, said 6,887 people had applied and, except in 1,000 cases where the postal department could not deliver the pension, the others were given pension regularly," Pandian said. The PIO asked Pandian to pay a fee of Rs 300 for a copy of the file. Pandian paid the money and filed an appeal seeking replies to more queries, but did not receive a reply.
Pandian approached the state commission on September 20, 2008. The commission, which held its first inquiry on February 25, 2009, ordered tahsildar M Murugesan to provide the replies. Murugesan said 7,827 people were getting pension and 1,401 applications were rejected. Since the figures contradicted those given by the PIO earlier, the petitioner once again moved the commission.
Tiruvannamalai district collector M Rajendran said, "We have decided to impose a fine on two special tahsildars and two section assistants, who provided wrong information to the commission. If there are complaints about discrepancies in disbursement of pension, we will investigate."
As T Retna Pandian, an activist, had not got the information he sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, he filed an appeal before the state commission. State chief information commissioner S Ramakrishnan and information commissioner G Ramakrishnan, in their order, said, "The collector of Tiruvannamalai will levy the maximum penalty of Rs 25,000, which has become leviable on the Public Information Officer (special tahsildar), remit it in the government account and report the fact to the commission within four weeks of this order." The commission also ordered the collector to depute a senior officer to provide correct information to Pandian, general secretary of 5th Pillar India, a Chennai-based NGO.
Pandian had filed an RTI application in June 2008, seeking details about the beneficiaries of the old-age pension scheme following complaints of political interference in disbursement. "More than 20 people from Vandavasi said their old-age pensions had been stopped as they had not supported a particular candidate in the last local body election. I filed an application seeking details of disbursement of Central and state government sponsored old-age pension schemes. The tahsildar, in his reply on June 27, 2008, said 6,887 people had applied and, except in 1,000 cases where the postal department could not deliver the pension, the others were given pension regularly," Pandian said. The PIO asked Pandian to pay a fee of Rs 300 for a copy of the file. Pandian paid the money and filed an appeal seeking replies to more queries, but did not receive a reply.
Pandian approached the state commission on September 20, 2008. The commission, which held its first inquiry on February 25, 2009, ordered tahsildar M Murugesan to provide the replies. Murugesan said 7,827 people were getting pension and 1,401 applications were rejected. Since the figures contradicted those given by the PIO earlier, the petitioner once again moved the commission.
Tiruvannamalai district collector M Rajendran said, "We have decided to impose a fine on two special tahsildars and two section assistants, who provided wrong information to the commission. If there are complaints about discrepancies in disbursement of pension, we will investigate."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- kesavan velayuthampalayam shanmugam
- I am a Lawyer by profession. Regardless of whom I meet or what I do or what I have become, it is the friends I grew up, that I feel.
Posts
