If All Judges Are Equal, Why Should Certain Kind Of Cases Go To A Particular Judge? Justice Madan B Lokur

Former Supreme Court Justice Madan B Lokur recently shared his insights on important ongoing issues at the Bhopal Literature and Art Festival. Justice Lokur spoke about the recent Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 (Act), Collegium system, delay by Central Government in appointing judges, and sitting over bills by Governors of the States and delay in deciding disqualification petitions filed under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) of the Constitution by the Maharashtra speaker. The Session, which revolved around constitutional morality, was moderated by Senior Advocate Bishwajit Bhattacharya. At the commencement of the session, Advocate Bhattacharya asked about replacing the Chief Justice of India in the collegium to select election commissioners with a union cabinet minister. Does it not violate the grundnorm and the very basis of the morality of the constitution? he asked. To this, Justice Lokur replied in the affirmative.Providing a succinct background, the Supreme Court, last year, in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, had ordered that the President of India appoint Election Commissioners on the advice of a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister and leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or leader of the largest opposition party), and the Chief Justice of India. However, in the recent Act enacted by the Parliament, CJI was replaced with the Union Cabinet minister, thus leaving the selection committee executive-centric. To support his answer, Justice Lokur also told the audience about the constituent assembly debates where it was unanimously agreed that the executive should not be involved in appointing the chief election commissioner (CEC) and other election commissioners. It was agreed that there has to be an independent body to execute free and fair elections, which is one of the basic features of our Constitution. “Yes, you are right. In the constituent assembly, there were debates about the election commission, One of the questions that was raised was why do not we decide how is the election commissioners are to be appointed. There were different views. Dr. Ambedkar said that this is going to take too long to decide what is the best way to do it so let's leave it to parliament. Let Parliament make a law on how to appoint the chief election commissioner and the election commissioners. But the most important thing was that everybody in the constituent assembly said that the executive should not be involved in the appointment of the CEC and the ECs. Which is to say that it has to be some independent body…free and fair elections is one of the basic features of our constitution.” Speaking about the new law that has replaced the CJI, Justice Lokur said that the executive will dominate. Therefore, he said, it goes against the constituent morality because today, the law is not independent of the executive. Additionally, it may be noted that recently, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a petition challenging the constitutionality of Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. According to Section 7, the selection committee would consist of the prime minister, a union cabinet minister, and the opposition leader or the leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha. Section 8 empowers the panel to regulate its procedure in a transparent manner and even consider persons other than those suggested by the search committee. Arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality; Justice Lokur On Arbitrary Assigning Of Cases Moving ahead with the session, Justice Lokur was asked about the issue of the master of the roster. The entire power is concentrated on the CJI. Why the entire Court cannot be involved in this process?, Bhattacharya asked.Justice Lokur, replying to this, said that for some reason, in the past, there have been some sensitive cases going to a particular judge or particular set of judges, and that has been a bit of a problem. “Why should some kinds of cases go only to a particular judge who also does not happen to a senior judge? Who happens to be a junior judge….That created a bit of a problem. That problem, unfortunately, is persisting. The perception is that the cases that are sensitive are going only to a particular judge or a particular set of judges and not to others….that perception creates a problem, that why the master of the roster, i.e., the CJI, is doing this.” “Arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality. If all judges are equal, you cannot arbitrarily say that, well, certain kinds of cases will go to a particular judge and to nobody else.,” Justice Lokur stated.It may be recalled that Justice Madan B Lokur was one of the four Supreme Court judges who convened the 2018 press conference over the 'master of roster' controversy. If A Person Is Gay, It Does Not Mean That He Cannot Be A Judge Speaking about the problem that the...

If All Judges Are Equal, Why Should Certain Kind Of Cases Go To A Particular Judge? Justice Madan B Lokur

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags