New Delhi: The open letter from Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy to the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, bringing charges against Justice NV Ramana, the next to be CJI in April 2021, has sparked something of a schism. within the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). ).
In a resolution that was signed by his acting hony. Secretary Rohit Pandey, the SCBA simply says that the executive committee held its meeting on October 16, 2020 that “strongly condemned” Reddy’s action in placing his letter to the CJI in the public domain. “Such actions by constitutional officials are opposed to the conventions, causing serious advances that impact the independence of the judiciary enshrined in the Constitution of India,” the resolution concludes.
The wire He understands from his sources that the EC met virtually and that the resolution was approved by the majority of its members. The EC force is 20 members. Of those, 16 attended the virtual meeting and others asked for permission to be absent because some were not in town, according to SCBA vice president and chief advocate Kailash Vasdev.
As the minutes of the meeting have not been uploaded to the SCBA website, the list of the 16 members who attended the virtual meeting is not immediately available.
Chander Uday Singh, one of the senior executive members, who supported the resolution, said The wire: “I understand that it was approved unanimously by everyone present at the meeting without a single disagreement.”
However, The wire learned that SCBA President Dushyant Dave strongly disagreed with the resolution.
Dushyant Dave disagrees
Dave, in a communication to Rohit Pandey, stated: “I am so sorry for your email [informing him about the adoption of the resolution by the EC]. I have continually refused to be a party to this resolution and have not participated in any consultation with you. In principle, I strongly oppose this resolution. “
Dave continued: “We have no idea about the veracity or not of [Jagan’s] accusations. The truth will emerge once the investigation is done, if at all. At this stage, we would be advancing the investigation. I am sure that at the end of the investigation the truth will emerge and, if the accusations are false, SC should initiate a contempt procedure against the CM. Today it is premature to approve the resolution, much less the one that everyone is proposing ”.
Dave spoke about the recent past in which the Supreme Court has been embroiled in many controversies, but has not recovered without flaw. He told Pandey in his official communication:
“You must remember that the judiciary is an institution that is completely opaque and no action is ever taken against judges who make mistakes. The Supreme Court is also not open and transparent. In the suicide note of Kalikho Pul (former CM of Arunachal Pradesh), two judges were specifically appointed, who later became the CJ of India. In the complaint of sexual harassment of an unfortunate lady, CJ Gogoi was directly implicated. The SC conducted an “insipid” investigation and gave him a clean note. She was fired and arrested in a bogus criminal case. Later, the case was dropped because the police found no evidence to proceed and the complainant withdrew the complaint. The reference to Judge Patnaik to investigate a larger conspiracy remains in limbo as his report is not made public. Ultimately, the lady has been reinstated with full back pay, proving her innocence and her position.
However, Bench and Bar have remained debatable spectators.
“There are many disturbing events that take place in court on a daily basis, and yet no voice is raised. Every now and then I get complaints from young attorneys that their issues are not listed, while those of influential AORs are. I step in to help them.
“What is all this going to show?
“I think the judges have a lot to explain. However, we at the Bar remain silent spectators. This damages the great institution of the CS rather than enhances it. We must introspect how we can strengthen the judicial and administration of justice system.
But passing the resolution is simply not a step in that direction. I put on record my strong reservation about the same and deeply regret my inability to join you, friends! “
If Dave’s arguments against the merits of the EC ruling are valid, then the EC’s claim that Jagan’s letter to the CJI violates the “convention” that causes serious breakthroughs impacting the “independence of the judiciary. “may also be open to debate.
Does transparency weaken judicial independence?
As the resolution makes clear, it does not go against Jagan’s letter as such, but it does not agree with their decision to place it in the public domain. Does the EC then suggest that by being transparent about its letter to the CJI, a constitutional official such as the prime minister of Andhra, violated some “convention” and thus adversely affected the independence of the judiciary?
What if Jagan hadn’t shared his correspondence with the CJI with the media, but had unofficially leaked it, would the SCBA still have blamed him? What if Jagan’s letter to the CJI remained confidential forever, as Kalikho Pul’s suicide note did, until The Wire published it in February 2017, and the CJI ignored it too? Would that perspective offer a guarantee of the independence of the judiciary?
It is clear that a number of professional bodies, such as the Delhi High Court Bar Association, the Indian Council of Lawyers, and the Tamil Nadu Defenders Association, such as the SCBA, have expressed similar concerns about Jagan’s letter, without shedding light on how the placement of your A letter in the public domain would affect the independence of the judiciary. Those who value transparency, on the contrary, would suggest, however, that the independence of the judiciary would be strengthened if by placing Jagan’s letter to the CJI in the public domain, the higher judiciary may be forced to clarify, and in the process, improve its credibility and, as a corollary, its independence.
Ball on Court by CJI Bobde
As senior attorney Sriram Panchu has noted, the responsibility now rests with CJI Bobde “to develop a fair and transparent process that allows Judge Ramana to clear his name; fraternal absolution and Pandora’s boxes will harm both man and the institution. “
Like Dave, Panchu also referenced the court’s recent past. “Here one can express an anxiety that haunts us for quite some time because the chief judges of India do not meet the standards of integrity and probity,” he wrote. “The CJI office is the most august – pater familas of the legal system, master of the list, say decisive in the appointment of the next generations of judges, does not become more powerful. We deserve to get the best CJI we can get. “
.
