Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"Supreme Court Justice A.K Sikri who is due to retire on the 6th of March took the very right move by withdrawing his consent for the post retirement position as member of the London headquartered Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal.
The Constitution of India is very clear on the distinct roles of the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. It envisages a free, fair and independent Judiciary. The highest standards of judicial independence must be ensured by warding off even the faintest trace of governmental influence on the judiciary.
As a desperate BJP wants to overpower the Judiciary too, there is a very disturbing disquiet over the slippery slope on which judicial values are slithering. Narendra Modi is all out to corrode and corrupt even the Independence of the Judiciary. It was very dismaying that a then Chief Justice of P. Sathasivam within weeks of his retirement accepted on 31st August 2014 Narendra Modi's offer to be Governor of Kerala. But another former Chief Justice R M Lodha led by example in his belief that judges should not take up any constitutional or other position at least two years after demitting office.
The demand to keep Supreme Court and High Court Judges away from immediately taking such post retirement benefits becomes the need of the hour and will thus ensure that those about to retire, do not run behind those in the establishment thus casting a death knell to the independence of the judiciary. There is a need of concerted efforts towards propping up highest standards of judicial accountability.
As judicial independence of Judges rests entirely on maintaining an incorruptible detachment from the politicians of the day, it cannot be allowed to be morally compromised by lobbying for cushy post-retirement sinecure postings. We have witnessed instances where Judges have fixed their retirement nests much prior to even demitting office.
In times when the Indian Judiciary is passing through a very turbulent phase, this "jobs-for-the-judges" syndrome could place judges potentially open to governmental influence leaving scope for "pre-retirement judgments" being predisposed by the craving of a "post-retirement job".
The Judiciary should never be manned by persons who are tilted or aligned to any political party. Judges should have the spine to crack on illegalities done by all politicians, regardless of how high positions they hold or which party they belong to. It has to be ensured that judicial accountability is maintained at all times with every Judge conforming to the highest standards of uprightness and integrity. If Judges cannot independently balance the scales of Justice, the Temples of Justice become pointless ending up as dens of chicanery and jugglery.
Aires Rodrigues
Advocate High Court
C/G-2, Shopping Complex
Ribandar Retreat,
Ribandar – Goa – 403006
Mobile No: 9822684372
Office Tel No: (0832) 2444012
Email: airesrodrigues1@gmail.com
Or
You can also reach me on
Facebook.com/ AiresRodrigues
Twitter@rodrigues_aires
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
Friday, January 18, 2019
Re: [IAC#RG] JUDGES SHOULD NEVER LEAVE ROOM FOR THEM TO BE JUDGED
Friends,
Greetings.
This is in response to Rodrigues email qua Sikri J - praising him because he has declined the post for which he had been nominated.
But to mind he had no option left. In fact, I'm my view, by declining the post now he is making virtue of a legal and moral wrong. Don't you think so?
He had been nominated to the post and his nomination wasn't in the public domain or known to anyone other than he, PM, the CJI and perhaps some select people in the Govt. Public perception would go that he sided with the PM lest the nomination should be cancelled if he did not. In fact I would go a step further. It is possible that PM may even have hinted that his nomination would be cancelled if he did not side with the PM. The post-haste manner he went about, siding with the PM, would make such perception even stronger.
The larger question is, "should he not have recused himself"? In my view he ought to have.
Alternatively, he should have told the fact of his nomination to Verma, the person who was going to be visited with civil consequences, and asked Verma if he had any objection to his being on the panel.
For the reason that he was on offer for a plum posting (plum does not necessarily go with the remuneration), he becomes an "Interested Party" and in view of the Constitutional Bench Judgment in AK Karaipak vs UOI, he was not fit to be on the panel.
Regards,
MG Kapoor
Advocate
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 9:13 AM, Aires Rodrigues <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net> wrote:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.