|
Dear Chandan
My sincere thanks for asking me to read this Tehelka article and thus
to derive immense fun out of it while educating myself on the present
state of the judiciary in India.
You may not know, once I was an employee of the Gauhati High
Court for two years. After a gap of about ten years I was myself appointed a
Judicial Magistrate but the then Chief Justice of the High Court decided not to
allow me to join because the State Government condoned my age by a few years.
The Government replied that this was done according to precedents as in the
years before no such objection was raised in the appointment of magistrates and
members of the lower judiciary. The High Court's decision was made
jointly by all the three judges there constituting
a division bench. Abut 10 of us were involved, in-service employees as
well as practising lawyers. A prominent Adocate whom we consulted
dissuaded us from challenging the decision. I often joke with my
friends, look here my appointment was gazetted and it was never cancelled and as
such I think I continued to be a little judge for many years on paper at least!
Now the above is an instance of how the independence of the
judiiciary has been made to remain sacrosanct.
The press made a scoop by obtaining all this information from
the confidential records kept by the Supreme Court. I doubt very much they got
it from the Supreme Court. Does the hon'ble CJ too have a hand in it as he
has a copy of all the correspondences? If that is so, it is a gross misconduct
to air his grievances through the media. For this he is accountable to the Chief
Justice of India.
Transfer from Chandigarh to Guwahati: Transfer from one High Court
to another is not regarded as punishment. Transfers are always made in
public interest. From Justice Roy's own account he was not getting on with
his learned colleagues; there was even a strike by 25 justices out of
27 against him, an unimaginable situation. Now he has catalogued the causes
leading to this extraordinary state of affairs. Nobody liked him
because he was a champion of discipline and accountability in the
administration of justice. He was a saintly figure while his brothers
were patently corrupt. He has listed a number of cases decided by himself
or together with the impugned colleagues which bear the stamp of his
integrityand able leadership, if not that of his colleagues.
These are anomalies, say, concerning the appointment of
Chief Minister's Principal Secretary as Chairman, jointly with two judges to a
Selectiion Board for selecting DSP's from the Sports quota (Is there such a
reservation in Assam too?), abuse of the process of law by an oral order to
stay the arrest of a son of the Bar Council Chairman, honorary
membership of the Forest Hill Golf Club to two of the justices,
undesirability of close relations practsing in the same bar, referral of a case
involving allotment of Govt land to the CBI, etc. Typical of what
happens in the rest of the Union.
Whatever the Chief Justices' meeting decided in their annual gatherings are
recommendations and not binding on the Government of India. It appears the Chief
Justice of India was helpless. For courtesy's sake the CJI could have sent
a personal letter. My information is that it is the practice.
Regards.
Bhuban
What do you want me to say, Chandan? It is an administrative matter and
shows both positive and negative aspects of law and society.
Regards |
_______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [email protected] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
