
Judges must keep aside ideas of morality, religion, political philosophy: Ex-SC judge Abhay S Oka
He was speaking on "Morality in Judiciary, A Paradigm or a Paradox" at an event organised by The Global Jurists.
"When a lawyer assumes the office of a judge, he must keep aside his ideas of morality, religion and political philosophy. He must keep his personal views on these three subjects in a watertight compartment while discharging duties as a judge," Justice Oka said.
He went on, "My personal view is for judges, something which is legal and constitutional is moral, and something which is not legal and constitutional is immoral. The basic rule is that the judges should not be swayed by popular opinion, and that is the concept of morality for judges."
The former judge said the crux of morality for judges meant applying ones mind on the law and the constitutional provisions, and once convinced about the legal correctness, delivering verdicts boldly without worrying about public opinion or "so called future prospects".
He illustrated with a case of a heinous crime, in which it was natural for the police or the investigating agency to feel public pressure to apprehend the accused.
"They want the trial to be expedited. But today we have a scenario where some very important people in public life, like politicians or even the chief minister for that matter, going public and saying that will ensure that the accused is arrested will be hanged," he said.
The former judge said before pronouncing the accused's guilt, people forget that ultimately it was for the court to decide on the basis of legal evidence whether the accused had committed the crime.
"And when it comes to sentencing, it is the priority of the court to follow the existing law and decide how sentencing should be done," he added.
The test against an accused, on the other hand, was stated to be whether there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the guilt was proved beyond reasonable time without beyond reasonable doubt.
"And one thing we must also remember as judges, that this traditional concept of morality is always controlled by popular opinion. And us judges, we don't get controlled by popular opinion. Because as judge, I should be prepared to deliver a verdict which will not be liked by the majority. That is the duty of a judge. Therefore, when we talk about morality, we must remember that judges are not bound by traditional concepts of morality. They are bound by their oath under the Constitution," Justice Oka said.
When a judge decided a criminal case, he had to brush aside the concept of societal morality, or his traditional morality, which was associated sometimes with religious faith, he added.
Justice Oka further deplored the practice of labelling trial courts as "lower" or "subordinate" courts.
"In fact, I personally believe that our trial judiciary and district judiciary are the main courts of the country. They are the main courts of the law of the land. These are the courts where a common man can afford to go to and litigate and therefore calling any court as subordinate court or lower court is completely against the ethos of our Constitution."
Former apex court judge Justice Madan B Lokur also spoke at the event.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hindu
21 minutes ago
- The Hindu
HC pauses Punjab's land pooling policy; govt. to file reply within 4 weeks
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday granted an interim stay on the operation of the Punjab government's Land Pooling Policy, 2025 and directed the State to file a reply within four weeks. The court's order came on a writ petition challenging the policy, which was introduced in June to promote planned and sustainable development by involving landowners, promoters, and companies as stakeholders in the development process. A Division Bench of Justice Anupinder Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda expressed concern over the lack of provisions in the policy for the rehabilitation of landless labourers and others who do not own land but are dependent on it for their sustenance. The court questioned the government over not conducting a Social Impact Assessment. The petitioner, Gurdeep Singh Gill, had challenged the policy, arguing that it was notified without carrying out the necessary environment and social impact assessments, which are essential for the acquisition of land under Sections 4 to 8 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013. Mr. Gill's counsel, Gurjeet Singh, told reporters that the court had granted an interim stay on the policy and directed the government to file a reply within four weeks. The petitioner had sought directions for quashing the State government's notification and the policy as 'ultra vires, arbitrary, and violative of the Constitution'. 'Looting scheme' The Punjab government had introduced the policy to increase interest in land pooling among landowners, with the promise of providing 1,000 square yards of residential plot and 200 square yards of commercial plot in fully developed land in lieu of one acre of land. However, the Opposition parties and farmer bodies in the State have been opposing the policy, dubbing it a 'looting' scheme to 'rob' farmers of their fertile land. Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) chief Sukhbir Singh Badal on Thursday called the policy a 'land-grabbing' scheme. He said the party would start a protest against the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government from September 1 in Mohali, which would continue until the policy is withdrawn. He alleged that AAP national convener Arvind Kejriwal had done an 'underhand deal' with Delhi builders to 'hand over' farmers' land to them. The SAD chief claimed that the State government and Mr. Kejriwal were attacking farmers and the poor, and that they wanted to raise money for the party by looting Punjab. Meanwhile, AAP hit out at the Opposition parties, alleging that they are spreading misleading propaganda against the State government's policy. Party leaders described the policy as 'farmer-friendly'.


Mint
21 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump to demand data from collages to prove they're not using race in admissions
US President Donald Trump is expected to sign a memorandum on Thursday directing colleges that receive federal funding to disclose expanded admissions data, the White House said, in a move aimed at ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling against affirmative action. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced the upcoming directive on X (formerly Twitter), saying the administration will require universities to provide proof that they are not engaging in race-conscious admissions practices. A senior White House official told ABC News the directive will task the Secretary of Education with expanding the admissions data schools are required to report, citing a need for 'transparency' in higher education. According to a fact sheet reviewed by ABC News, 'The lack of available admissions data from universities raises concerns about whether race is actually used in admissions decisions in practice.' The new reporting requirements will include information on applicants' race, test scores, and academic performance. The goal, according to the White House, is to "verify that their admissions do not involve unlawful discrimination." The fact sheet adds that the Department of Education will also be ordered to revamp its website to make admissions data 'more efficient, easily accessible, and intelligibly presented for parents and students.' The directive follows recent settlements with Columbia and Brown universities, which agreed to release detailed admissions data, including racial information, after months of negotiations with the Trump administration over federal funding. Those settlements have sparked a national debate over academic freedom, government oversight, and the role of race in college admissions. This latest move fits into a broader effort by the Trump administration to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. In his first week back in office, Trump signed an executive order requiring all federal departments and agencies to eliminate 'discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs' tied to DEI efforts.


NDTV
25 minutes ago
- NDTV
Top Court Criticises Allahabad High Court For Ignoring Settled Law On Sentence Suspension
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has once again expressed its displeasure with an order of the Allahabad High Court for failing to apply settled legal principles while rejecting a plea for suspension of sentence in a fixed-term conviction. The observations from the top court came days after it pulled up an Allahabad High Court judge for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case. In an unprecedented order, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on August 4 stripped criminal matters of the roster of a Allahabad High Court judge "till he demits office" after he "erroneously" upheld summons of criminal nature in a civil dispute. The same bench came hard on the high court decision in another case. "The impugned Order is one more from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad with which we are disappointed," it said, adding that this plea arose from an order passed by the High Court on May 29, in a criminal appeal by which the high court declined to suspend the substantive order of sentence passed by the trial court. "We are once again constrained to observe that such errors creep in at the level of the High Court and only because the wellsettled principles of law on the subject are not applied correctly. "It is very important to first look into the subject-matter. Thereafter the court should look into the issue involved. In the last the court should look into the plea of the litigant and then proceed to apply the correct principles of law," Justice Pardiwala said in an order on August 6. The apex court observed that the High Court's order was legally flawed and demonstrated a disregard for established jurisprudence. It was hearing an appeal filed by a convict who had been sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment under various provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The convict had approached the high court with an application under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking suspension of his sentence. However, the high court rejected the plea solely on the ground that the offence was "heinous", without evaluating the request in light of the settled law. Setting aside the high court's order, bench cited a landmark judgment which mandates that appellate courts should adopt a liberal approach in suspending fixed-term sentences unless exceptional circumstances exist. Emphasizing the need for judicial clarity, the bench said, "It is very important to first look into the subject matter. Thereafter, the court should examine the issues involved, and only then consider the plea of the litigant before applying the correct principles of law." The apex court took particular issue with the high court's failure to analyze the application on legal grounds. "What the high court did was to reiterate the prosecution's case and the oral evidence, without engaging with the legal test for suspension of sentence in a fixed-term conviction," the bench observed. It has now remanded the matter back to the high court for fresh consideration, directing it to pass an appropriate order within 15 days. "The High Court shall keep in mind that the sentence is for a fixed term, that is four years and it is only if there are compelling circumstances indicating that release would not be in public interest, that suspension may be denied," the order clarified.