Delayed appointments challenge judiciary's independence: SC ex-judge
Lawyers recommended for judgeship have to wait for around a year for govt to approve their appointment. This is an example of the independence of the judiciary still being challenged today, a retired judge of the
Supreme Court
, Justice Abhay S Oka, said on Thursday.
He said that former Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, made the entire system transparent by putting in the public domain every single document on how the collegium functions.
All documents at every stage, right from the recommendation from the collegium of the high courts, the state, and authorities, to any objection raised by the chief minister, the governor, or the intelligence bureau, as well as the response of Govt of India, are all public, Oka said.
'All this comes before the Supreme Court collegium, but today we have scenarios where, after the Supreme Court collegium approves the recommendation and it is put out on the website, it takes nine months and even more than a year for govt to approve the names of judges,' Oka said.
The retired justice said, 'Once the Supreme Court collegium resolution is on the website, imagine the mindset of that person. He cannot get work as he feels he's going to become a judge, but he must wait nine months or even a year or more. Does this not affect the independence of the judiciary?'
Oka said, 'Therefore, the scenario today is that of chief justices saying they find it difficult to persuade bright lawyers to accept judgeship because of the practical difficulties they face due to the uncertainty.'
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025
Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List
Undo
He was delivering the first lecture under the annual lecture series in memory of the late Justice H R Khanna of the Supreme Court, organised by the Goa High Court Bar Association.
Oka said it is up to the legal fraternity to ensure that the independence of the judiciary remains intact, and unless the judiciary is independent, fundamental rights and democracy will not survive.
While the right to hold protests was curbed during the Emergency, the tendency continues even today, Oka said.
'I came across a case as the Chief Justice of the Karnataka high court in 2020 or 2021 where Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was invoked when somebody wanted to protest against the CAA,' Oka said. 'In those days, rulers relied upon Emergency powers, but the tendency continues and I had to set aside the order that prohibited an agitation against the CAA.'
Once a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, he or she should never think about future prospects, he said, and not think about the consequences of a judgment they are going to deliver.
Bold and fearless judges like the late Justice Khanna, who was fiercely independent, may not get high posts but will get great satisfaction in abiding by the oath, Oka said.
Judges like Khanna and other fearless judges who sacrificed a lot but did not reach the pinnacle or the Supreme Court will nevertheless be remembered forever, he said.
On the other hand, he said, there are judges who have reached high positions but have already been forgotten.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- Indian Express
As RSS calls for amending Preamble, why it puts BJP in a tricky position
When the RSS general secretary says that the words 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Preamble to the Constitution should be reviewed, it is more than a casual call for a debate, for the Sangh is measured in its utterances. Dattatreya Hosabale's comment last week is not the first time the issue has come up. BJP Rajya Sabha MP Rakesh Sinha moved a Private Member's Bill in 2020, and others have petitioned the courts. The Supreme Court examined the matter, and in 2024, a two-judge Bench led by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjeev Khanna upheld the insertion of 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble. It is true, as the RSS says, that B R Ambedkar, and indeed Jawaharlal Nehru, did not feel it was required to explicitly include secularism and socialism in the Preamble when the Constitution was being framed. Ambedkar felt the idea was embedded in the essence of the document and did not need an overt expression. In 1976, Indira Gandhi decided to include the words in the Preamble amid the Emergency when fundamental rights were suspended, the press muzzled, the judiciary's oversight role withdrawn, and Opposition leaders in jail. In the preceding months, there had not been any demand for their inclusion in the Preamble, and there was hardly any discussion on the matter before it happened. The change came as part of the 42nd Amendment that concentrated power in the hands of the executive. Whatever be Mrs Gandhi's motivation — whether it was to insert 'socialist' to retain the support of the USSR, or add 'secularism' to make amends and send a signal to Muslims who were angry about enforced sterilisations during the Emergency — the Janata Party government chose not to remove the two words from the Preamble. The government, of which the BJP's precursor Jana Sangh was a part, clearly thought it politically prudent to retain them even though it undid many of the Emergency provisions through the 44th Amendment. The two 'S' words that have suddenly become so controversial did not create a kerfuffle back then and a few questioned if India was, or should be, a secular and socialist nation. Over the years, socialism has evolved into a widely accepted generic concept, understood as economic and social justice for the last person. PM Narendra Modi is more of a social-welfarist than several of his predecessors. Secularism, too, had near-universal acceptance till it began to be equated with minority appeasement. The RSS wants to turn the clock back. But in politics, sometimes it's easier to do than undo. To remove 'secular' from the Preamble today will signal that India is now moving towards a Hindu Rashtra. It is like talking about undoing reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes given after Independence (22.5%), or quota for the Other Backward Classes (27%) that was given in 1990 following the Mandal Commission report. V P Singh had once said even if he wanted to undo the Mandal decision, he could not go back because it could lead to widespread violence. When RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat in 2015 spoke about moving beyond reservation, the resulting backlash only helped bring Lalu Prasad and Nitish Kumar to power in Bihar. The timing of the Sangh's move today is of as much interest as the move itself. After the fulfilment of its core agenda — Ram temple, Article 370, Uniform Civil Code — the Sangh may want to push its agenda further in its centenary year as it looks to create a Hindu civilisational entity. The response, or otherwise, of the BJP to Hosabale's comment is instructive. Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan — who has been one of the Sangh's favourites for BJP presidentship — was the first to endorse the idea. Chouhan said 'sarva dharma sambhava (all religions are equal)' and not secularism (the French concept of separation of church and state) was a part of Indian culture. His Cabinet colleague Jitendra Singh also spoke in the same vein as did Chief Ministers Devendra Fadnavis and Himanta Biswa Sarma. The RSS's suggestion can complicate an already difficult situation for the BJP brass. First, the party will have to decide what it will do about the allegiance to secularism that is mentioned in its party Constitution. In 2014, PM Modi said that secularism 'flows in our blood'. Second, the BJP's NDA allies, on whom the party is dependent in its third term, are not likely to bite the bullet easily. Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) leader Chirag Paswan has already made it clear he is not in favour of amending the Preamble. Third, it will give another handle to the Congress to target the BJP. Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi has already said the BJP prefers the Manusmriti to the Constitution. Samajwadi Party leader Akhilesh Yadav has also accused the party of quietly going for a change in the Constitution because it is unable to openly oppose reservation for Dalits and OBCs. Both the BJP and the Opposition are manoeuvring to get the support of Dalits and OBCs. The ruling party knows how fraught with risks any talk of changing the Constitution can be, given that the Opposition's narrative dented it in the Lok Sabha elections last year and brought the party down to 240 seats. There is a growing perception today about the Constitution. The founding document (also, Constitutional secularism) is identified with Ambedkar, more than was the case in the 1970s and 80s. And Ambedkar is equated with Dalits and Dalits with reservation. Even though the RSS is saying it wants to return to the Preamble approved by Ambedkar, we do not know which way the cookie will crumble. Both the Congress and the BJP realise the Constitution is a live political issue today and observing the 50th anniversary of the Emergency is more than a mere recall of what happened then. We can discuss what kind of secularism suits the country. We can accept or reject the French model, and back the Indian concept that emphasises the equality of religions before the state. However, at the end of the day, secularism is not a luxury for a diverse nation such as India. It is a necessity that enables us to co-exist as one entity. (Neerja Chowdhury, Contributing Editor, The Indian Express, has covered the last 11 Lok Sabha elections. She is the author of How Prime Ministers Decide)
Hindustan Times
40 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
What Supreme Court said about Trump's South Sudan deportations
The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the deportation of several immigrants who were put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan, a war-ravaged country where they have no ties. US Supreme Court sided with President Trump on South Sudan deportations(REUTERS) The decision comes after the court's conservative majority found that immigration officials can quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger. The court's latest decision makes clear that the South Sudan flight can complete the trip, weeks after it was detoured to a naval base in Djibouti. There, the migrants who had previously been convicted of serious crimes were held in a converted shipping container. It reverses findings from federal Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who said his order on those migrants still stands even after the high court lifted his broader decision. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said federal authorities would complete the trip to South Sudan by the next day. The Supreme Court majority wrote that their decision on June 23 completely halted Murphy's ruling and also rendered his decision on the South Sudan flight 'unenforceable.' The court did not fully detail its legal reasoning on the underlying case, as is common on its emergency docket. Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, saying the ruling gives the government special treatment. 'Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,' Sotomayor wrote. Justice Elena Kagan wrote that while she disagreed with the original order, it does countermand Murphy's findings on the South Sudan flight. The eight migrants could face 'imprisonment, torture and even death' in South Sudan, where escalating political tensions have threatened to devolve into another civil war. 'We know they'll face perilous conditions, and potentially immediate detention, upon arrival,' Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said Thursday. The push comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by Trump's Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. The Trump administration has called Murphy's finding 'a lawless act of defiance.' McLaughlin said the Supreme Court's intervention is 'a win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people.' Attorney General Pam Bondi called Murphy a 'rogue district court judge' and said the justices had rebuked him. Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities can't quickly send them back to their homelands. The eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of crimes in the U.S. and had final orders of removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have said. Murphy, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, didn't prohibit deportations to third countries. But he found migrants must have a real chance to argue they could be in danger of torture if sent to another country, even if they've already exhausted their legal appeals. The men and their guards have faced rough conditions on the naval base in Djibouti, where authorities detoured the flight after Murphy found the administration had violated his order by failing to allow them a chance to challenge the removal. They have since said they're afraid of being sent to South Sudan, Realmuto said.
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
Asian shares open cautiously on tariff angst
Asian shares traded in a tight range Friday after President Donald Trump's threat to impose higher tariffs outweighed the sentiment from a stronger US jobs data . The MSCI Asia Pacific Index swung between small gains and losses at the open after US stocks closed at a record Thursday in a shortened session ahead of Friday's Independence Day holiday. Trump said his administration may begin sending out letters to trading partners as soon as Friday, setting unilateral tariff rates, ahead of the July 9 deadline for negotiations. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like War Thunder - Register now for free and play against over 75 Million real Players War Thunder Play Now Undo Treasuries fell and the dollar rose Thursday in a sign traders see less pressure on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates after US jobs growth exceeded expectations in June. Swap traders saw almost no chance of a July Fed cut, compared with a roughly 25% probability seen before the data. The chance of a move in September ebbed to about 70%. 'The solid June jobs report confirms that the labor market remains resolute and slams the door shut on a July rate cut,' said Jeff Schulze at ClearBridge Investments. 'A wage-price inflationary spiral shouldn't be a near-term concern, setting up something resembling a 'Goldilocks' scenario.' Meanwhile, Trump secured a sweeping shift in US domestic policy as the House passed a $3.4 trillion fiscal package that cuts taxes, curtails spending on safety-net programs. The 218-214 vote in the House Thursday sends the legislation to Trump, in time for a July 4 deadline he set. Live Events The president said he plans to sign the bill on Friday at a 4 p.m. ceremony at the White House. A $5 trillion increase in the US debt limit in the package eliminates the risk of a market-rattling payment default the Treasury had forecast could come as soon as mid-August without congressional action. 'The removal of the risk that the Treasury Department would exhaust the capacity to fund itself is a highly welcome development for all market players,' Chris Weston, head of research at Pepperstone Group, wrote in a note. 'The Treasury department will soon look to ramp up bill issuance.' In Asia, Hong Kong's de-facto central bank bought the city's dollar again to defend its foreign-exchange peg. The Hong Kong dollar has had a wild ride recently with two previous rounds of intervention failing to send funding costs high enough to dampen bearish currency bets. Separately, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Thursday questioned Fed officials' judgment on rates, reiterating his view that two-year yields are a signal their benchmark rate is too high. 'The committee seems to be a little off here in their judgment,' Bessent said in an interview on Fox Business, referring to the Fed's rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee.
