No need for Supreme Court to comment on abilities of high court judges: CJI BR Gavai
B R Gavai and Justice Surya Kant, who is next in line to succeed him, have disapproved of the tendency of judges of superior courts to comment on the knowledge and ability of lower court judges, and said the
and high courts are only to correct, modify impugned orders/judgments, or set them aside, if they were perverse.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
"The high courts are not subordinate to the SC as both are constitutional courts. SC can only rectify, modify or set aside the orders/judgments of HCs. The Constitution gives no authority to comment on the ability, capability or knowledge of individual judges of HCs," the CJI told TOI.
Justice Kant agreed. "Superior court judges must discharge their role as friend, philosopher and guide for lower court judges. In the three-tiered justice delivery system, persuasion and guidance yields better results than criticism and castigation," Justice Kant, who'll take over from Gavai on Nov 24, told TOI.
Remarks of the CJI as well as Justice Kant assume significance in the wake of an SC bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan criticising an Allahabad HC judge for passing "the worst and most erroneous order" and barring him from hearing criminal cases. The bench Friday expunged its directions for de-rostering the judge while requesting the HC chief justice to look into the matter.
SC has no authority to dictate rosters of HCs: Justice Kant
Endorsing the vision encapsulated in the saying 'a judge who has not committed a mistake is yet to be born', CJI B R Gavai told TOI that the same principle applies to HC judges, who should refrain from castigating judicial officers on the ground of lack of ability, knowledge or capability while hearing appeals against impugned orders authored by them.
"They must administratively convey how to improve and in which area. For that, HC CJs concerned have a significant role to play. The role of superior courts in imparting required training to lower court judges in various aspects of adjudication, acquiring knowledge in myriad fields of law and maintaining proper demeanour and decorum in the courtroom will shape the future of the justice delivery system and reinforce people's faith in judiciary," the CJI said.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Justice Kant said HC judges and judicial officers come from various social strata and bring with them a wealth of real-life experiences which can be harnessed, modulated and sharpened with legal training to enrich the justice delivery system to meet day-to-day challenges of open court hearing and address grievances of litigants.
"On the judicial side, SC has no authority to dictate to HCs which of their judges would hear what types of cases or the manner in which cases are to be decided.
It can only lead by example and guide them with its judgments. Allocation of cases to judges and their roster squarely falls in the exclusive domain of the HC CJ concerned," Justice Kant said.
CJI Gavai said, "Every constitutional court judge, be it in HCs or in SC, has the constitutional responsibility to do justice in each case, whether criminal or civil or any other field of law. Superior court judges have the onerous duty to maintain civility while passing orders or writing judgments."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
Dy CM threatens legal action against Tejashwi over ‘false allegations'
Patna: The ongoing political confrontation between the BJP and RJD intensified on Wednesday, with deputy CM Vijay Kumar Sinha lashing out at the opposition over allegations related to the voter list revision and his educational qualifications. He also threatened legal action against those who made false allegations against him. Describing himself as the Hanuman of NDA, Sinha said, "I will not let the alliance suffer at any cost. The time has come to teach a lesson to the sons of Shakuni and Duryodhana. The answer will be given in the language they want." Sinha said the BJP has fought against RJD chief Lalu Prasad and will now fight against his son Tejashwi Prasad Yadav . "I fought against your father and now will fight against you, too," he challenged Tejashwi. Tejashwi had alleged that Sinha was a voter in his constituency Lakhisarai and as well as in Patna with different dates of birth mentioned. Sinha clarified that his name has been removed from the voter list in Patna and showed his degrees to prove his age as 58. Sinha alleged that those who kept giving jobs by taking money and land were raising questions on his educational degree. "I have both the degrees. If RJD has the courage, they should also make their degrees public," he said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Ranked: The 25 Best Cities To Live In The World Learn More Undo Sinha said those who did not believe in the Constitution and democracy were talking about boycotting the elections. "Those born with a golden spoon can never be well-wishers of the public," he said as Tejashwi, in the morning reiterated that the opposition will think over boycotting the coming assembly elections after consulting the people during his 'Vote Adhikar Yatra' with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi from August 17. He alleged that there was no point in contesting elections if the Election Commission continued to act on behalf of the BJP. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Amid Row, Bigger Supreme Court Bench To Hear Stray Dog Case Tomorrow
New Delhi: Hours after Chief Justice of India BR Gavai assured a relook at the two-judge bench order on moving all stray dogs in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) to shelter homes, the matter has been referred to a larger bench, which will hear the case on Thursday. On the directions of Chief Justice Gavai, a three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria will take up the case. The relocation had been ordered by a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on Monday and the issue was raised before the Chief Justice on Wednesday. Seeking urgent listing, Advocate Nanita Sharma informed Justice Gavai that there had been two conflicting rulings on the issue by the Supreme Court and an earlier bench had asked for the implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, which state that sterilised and vaccinated stray dogs should be returned to the same locality. In its order on Monday, the bench of Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan, taking note of the rising incidents of dog bites and attacks, had said all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR should be rounded up and moved to shelters within eight weeks. The dogs, the bench had said, should be kept at the shelters and not allowed to escape. "We are not doing this for us, it is for the public interest. So, no sentiments of any nature should be involved. Action should be taken at the earliest... Pick up dogs from all localities and shift them to shelters. For the time being, forget the rules," Justice Pardiwala had said. "All these animal activists, will they be able to bring back those who have fallen prey to rabies? We need to make streets absolutely free of stray dogs," the bench had remarked. Infrastructure? Animal activists, celebrities and even some political leaders had spoken out against the order, pointing out that Delhi and other cities in NCR, including Noida and Gurugram, did not have the infrastructure to execute the mass relocation, especially in such a short timeframe. Many also said that moving the dogs from their territories would just make room for others and that the answer lay in the effective implementation of the ABC Rules. "You have three lakh dogs in Delhi. To get them all off the roads, you will have to make 3,000 pounds, each with drainage, water, a shed, a kitchen, and a watchman. That will cost about Rs 15,000 crore. Does Delhi have Rs 15,000 crore for this?" animal activist and former Union minister Maneka Gandhi had said. "Within 48 hours, three lakh dogs will come from Ghaziabad, Faridabad because there's food in Delhi. And once you remove the dogs, monkeys will come on the ground... I have seen this happen at my own house. In Paris in the 1880s, when they removed dogs and cats, the city was overrun with rats," she added, calling dogs "rodent control animals". Other Order In the earlier order, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and JK Maheshwari had asked for the implementation of existing laws, including the ABC rules, and stressed that the issue should be dealt with compassion. "We only hasten to add, that under all circumstances, there cannot be any indiscriminate killings of canines and the authorities have to take action in terms of the mandate and spirit of the prevalent legislation in place. There is no gainsaying in the fact that exhibiting compassion to all living beings is the enshrined Constitutional value and mandate and casts an obligation on the authorities to maintain," the bench had said.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
24-hour span to produce accused before magistrate begins when the person is detained: HC
The Kerala High Court has said the 24-hour period to produce an accused before a magistrate commenced from the time the person is effectively detained or his/her liberty curtailed, and not from the time of arrest that the police recorded. A Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said the non-recording of arrest under one pretext or another was often resorted to under the guise of investigation. Police brutalities generally occured during these periods of uncontrolled authority. Unless there was a check, such unrecorded periods of custody could be the source of human rights violations, the court observed. The Constitution mandates that the person arrested be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest. Other than the time needed to reach the magistrate court from the place of arrest, there is a peremptory prohibition that the person arrested shall not be detained beyond the said period without the magistrate's authority, it said and granted bail to Biswajit Mandal of West Bengal, who had been arrayed as accused in a drug case. Mr. Mandal contended that he was detained beyond the 24-hour period, in violation of constitutional and statutory prescriptions and had sought bail. To decide the legal issue regarding when the 24-hour period began, the court had appointed Nikhina Thomas and Neha Babu, second-year students of Ramaiah College, Bengaluru, as amici curiae for providing assistance.
