Key Takeaways From Public Meeting Held By Lawyers’ Forum for Democracy and Justice

The public meeting hosted on Friday by the Lawyers’ Forum for Democracy and Justice on the ‘Independence of Judiciary- Implications for Democracy’ witnessed some strong remarks from eminent members of the legal community.The event, held at the Indian Society of International Law in New Delhi, saw in attendance inter alia senior counsel Indira Jaising, former ASG Biswajit Bhattacharya, celebrated advocates KK Manan, Vrinda Grover and Indira Unninayar, former ADJ Sangeeta Madan, journalist Maneesh Chibber, and former National Judicial Academy director G Mohan Gopal.The issues for discussion were- independence of the judiciary; appointment of judges; reform of the roster system; and mechanism for redressal of complaints against judges.At the beginning of the programme, a note by politician-lawyer Prakash Ambedkar was read out wherein he had quoted Dr BR Ambedkar’s observation- “As every untouchable will be able to testify, if an Untouchable goes to a police officer with a complaint against the caste-Hindus instead of receiving any protection he will receive plenty of abuse. Either he will be driven away without his complaint being recorded or, if it is recorded, it would be recorded quite falsely to provide a way of escape to the Touchable aggressors. If he prosecutes his offenders before a Magistrate the fate of his proceedings could be foretold. The Untouchable will never be able to get Hindus as witness because of the conspiracy of the villagers not to support the case of the Untouchables, however just it may be. If he brings witness from the Untouchables, the Magistrate will not accept their testimony because he can easily say that they are interested and not independent witness, or if they are independent witness, the Magistrate has an easy way of acquitting the accused simply by saying that the Untouchable’s complaint did not strike as a truthful witness. He can do this fearlessly, knowing full well that the higher tribunal will not reverse his finding . . .”The following are some interesting excerpts from the meeting-Ms. Indira Jaising “The judicial system is turning into a hereditary institution...the network that one has determines their elevation to judgeship...Children of judges succeed them as judges...,” she remarked.“Sadly, the main criteria for appointment as a judge is 10 years’ experience as an advocate...many advocates are much more experienced...why are they not elevated as judges then...,” she continued.“I congratulate the four Supreme Court judges (Justice J Chelameswar, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Kurian Joseph) who, in the press conference called by them on January 12, acted as whistle-blowers regarding the threats to democracy..., they are my heroes ” said Ms. Jaising.Ms. Jaising has drawn attention to the dilution of the stringency of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 by “two judges” and the lack of any judges from the said categories in the Supreme Court.She also expressed her doubts regarding the appointment of Supreme Court Justice Ranjan Gogoi as the next CJI.Mr. Biswajit Bhattacharya “When four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court, including the next incumbent Chief Justice of India, make a statement that they are discharging the debt of obligation to the nation so that the posterity does not allege that they sold their souls, it is to be understood as the biggest threat to democracy,” he said.“The integrity of the four Supreme Court judges who addressed the press on January 12 cannot at all be called into question... the bar must remain eternally vigilant for the next 99 working days until the next CJI assumes office in October...16 lakh lawyers in the country shall collect together and not allow Justice Ranjan Gogoi to be superseded...”“The collegium system is better than allowing the judiciary to be hijacked...so many matters are stuck in courts and the judiciary, which is the last bastion of hope for people, is crippled...come what may, we must not allow the supersession of any judge...we must watch to see whether there will be a repetition of the supersession of Justice HR Khanna (in 1977)...”Ms. Sangeeta MadanShe discussed the mechanism for redressal of complaints against members of the higher judiciary, in the light of her complaint of sexual harassment against Justice SK Gangele.“There is no absolutely no mechanism for suspension of judicial and administrative powers or transfer in the interim...there is no transparency in the in house proceedings under the Judicial Inquiry Act of 1968...no audio visual recording or written documents...”“If I, being an ADJ, was unable to secure the initiation of impeachment motion under Article 217, even with the efforts of Ms. Indira Jaising, would it be possible for a common person to achieve the same?”Ms. Vrinda GroverIn respect of the oath of office to which the judges are committed, Ms. Grover stated, “The ideology of this oath is not the neo-liberal...

Key Takeaways From Public Meeting Held By Lawyers’ Forum for Democracy and Justice

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehal Jain

Key Takeaways From Public Meeting Held By Lawyers’ Forum for Democracy and Justice

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers