Latest news with #HighCourts
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a day ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
CJI not a mere post office, must uphold judicial transparency: SC
Defending the Chief Justice of India's authority to act on any judicial misconduct, the Supreme Court on Thursday said he couldn't be "merely a post office" but had the moral responsibility to ensure the judiciary functioned in a transparent, efficient and constitutionally appropriate manner. "We have no hesitation to say that the CJI is not a mere post office between the committee and the President/the Prime Minister that the report is to be forwarded without any remarks/recommendation. The CJI is clearly an important person, if not the most, in the larger scheme of maintaining institutional interest and credibility to ascertain whether a Judge has indulged in misconduct," the top court said. The observations came while deciding the plea of Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma, against whom an SC-appointed expert panel filed a damning report over the discovery of burnt wads of cash from his official residence during his judgeship in Delhi. "As per the procedure, after receiving a complaint against a judge or a report from the Chief Justice of the High Court of which he is a Judge, the CJI has to apply his mind to the nature of complaint/report together with supporting materials, if any," a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih said. Observing procedure was scrupulously followed, the top court dismissed Varma's plea seeking invalidation of the in-house inquiry report finding him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery row. In its judgement, the apex court observed if the CJI believes the matter requires a deeper probe, he is required to constitute a committee for an in-house inquiry. "The report of inquiry may, or may not, find the allegations against the Judge to be serious, so as to call for any measure. However, if it does, the CJI is under an obligation to forward the report to the President and the Prime Minister. We see no justification to hold that in so forwarding, the CJI may not give his own views," the bench said. It went on, "The CJI bears a significant moral responsibility as the foremost judicial officer to ensure that the judiciary of the country functions in a transparent, efficient and constitutionally appropriate manner. Advising judges to be cautious and exercise discretion in judicial conduct, the top court said judicial officers in every rank, and more specifically, judges in the higher echelons of the judiciary "owe huge obligation" to the people of the country. "No judge, either of the Supreme Court or the High Courts, being above the law, acting in the discharge of his judicial or administrative/non-judicial or official duties in a manner attracting a possible complaint of not abiding by the restatement of values of judicial life (widely regarded now as the Code of Conduct for Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts) has to be shunned." While frivolous complaints of disgruntled litigants, lawyers among others couldn't be avoided, the top court said, the path of probity also could never be abandoned by a judge. "Any thought of there being absence of disciplinary measure other than removal by impeachment (which has never fructified over the years despite occasions calling for it) and therefore escaping unscathed despite committing a misbehaviour or indulging in bad conduct/misconduct, is what is normal, should be eschewed," it added. The apex court said with the advancement in science and technology and all other spheres of work, it was quite possible to bring to the CJI's notice how a particular judge might have conducted themselves inappropriately, attracting strict action. "Withdrawal of judicial work from a judge is an extreme measure that the procedure expressly permits. There are other measures too, which could be explored if judges are found to deviate from the Code of Conduct. The judges should, therefore, act cautiously and exercise their discretion wisely, to evade creation of a situation where initiating action becomes imperative," the verdict opined. The bench further pointed out that the judiciary in India was characterised by judicial independence, but such independence signified flexibility of judicial thought and the freedom to adjudicate without external and internal pressure and not unfettered liberty to act as one might wish. "Just as judicial independence is fundamental, so too is judicial accountability, compromising one compromises the other," the verdict added. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Hans India
27-07-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Indian courts burdened with backlog of 5.29 crore cases: Official data
Indian courts are burdened with a massive load of 5.29 crore pending cases, official data up to July 21 available on the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) showed on Sunday. The maximum number of 4.65 crore cases are pending in district and subordinate courts, followed by 63.30 lakh cases in High Courts and 86,742 cases in the Supreme Court, the data showed. Apart from the burgeoning case backlog, the district and subordinate courts appear to have struggled to work at full strength. According to the Department of Justice, as against a sanctioned strength of 25,843 judicial officers as on July 21, 2015, the lower courts are working with a strength of 21,122. 'Filling up of vacancies in District and Subordinate judiciary falls within the domain of the State/UT governments and High Courts concerned,' according to a statement by the Law and Justice Ministry. As a measure to reduce backlog, arrears committees have been set up in all 25 High Courts to clear cases pending for more than five years, and similar arrears committees have now been set up under District Courts as well, the Ministry said. Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal, in a recent reply in Parliament, shared details of government measures taken to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court and the High Courts. 'From May 1, 2014, to July 21, 2025, 70 Judges have been appointed in the Supreme Court. Apart from this, 1,058 new judges were appointed, and 794 Additional Judges were made permanent in the High Courts during the same period. The sanctioned strength of judges of the High Courts has increased from 906 in May 2014 to 1,122 till date,' said Meghwal. He also informed that Fast Track Courts have been established for dealing with cases of heinous crimes, cases involving senior citizens, women and children. As of June 30, 2025, 865 Fast Track Courts are functional across the country.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
24-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
FM Sitharaman flays tax officials, says OGE issuance delays 'unpardonable'
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, on the 166th Income Tax Day on Thursday, sharply criticised delays in the issuance of Orders Giving Effect (OGEs), calling them 'unpardonable,' and urged the income tax department to act decisively on five priority areas identified during a high-level review in June 2025. OGE refers to the implementation of appellate or court decisions by tax officers. It ensures that the outcomes—such as refunds, reassessments, or adjustments—are formally carried out based on the ruling. 'After all the decisions are taken, the delay in OGE issuance is just not explainable. But we have a category—would you believe it? You have a category of OGE issuance delay. Why pray? The decisions are all done. You just have to issue the OGE. Unpardonable,' she said, addressing senior officials. Reinforcing the need for accountability, she said that good policies alone are not enough. What matters, actually, is timely execution. Referring to the progress made in redrafting the Income Tax Act, she added, 'For a group or the CBDT, which is able to reduce five lakh words of the 1961 Act within a matter of three months to give me a draft bill which is half the size of that earlier 1961 Act… you're able to do that, but you can't issue OGEs? What's going on?' Recalling the key action points from the June 2025 review, Sitharaman said: 'I would recall five of them (including the issue of OGE), which I would think are important for all of us to re-look at—not because things have changed from then to now, June 2025 to now, but to refresh ourselves that these were things which all of us spoke about together.' The first, she said, is to 'accelerate disposal of disputed tax demands pending before the faceless appellate authorities and ensure timely resolution of litigation backlog.' Second, departments must 'identify and withdraw departmental appeals falling below the revised monetary threshold announced during the Union Budget 2024–2025 within the next three months.' The Union Budget 2024–25 raised the monetary thresholds for filing departmental appeals in tax-related cases, setting the new limits at ₹60 lakh for tribunals, ₹2 crore for High Courts, and ₹5 crore for the Supreme Court. These enhanced limits apply to disputes under Direct Taxes, as well as legacy cases in Excise and Service Tax. The third priority is to 'ensure timely processing of tax refunds and proactive and timely resolution of taxpayer grievances,' said the Minister. Fourth, departments must 'analyse the grievances and devise strategies not only to resolve the existing pendency but also to address the challenges that are causing the grievances in the first place.' And fifth, Sitharaman said, is to 'undertake region-wise performance reviews to help identify factors hindering performance and streamline operations through indicators such as grievance disposal and orders giving effect issuance.' Calling the Income Tax Day 'the moment when we reaffirm the unsaid social contract between the state and the taxpayer,' Sitharaman said this contract must not be allowed to 'fray at the edges' or 'become loose, become diluted.' She urged officials to raise the benchmark and ensure that the reform process is matched by efficient delivery on the ground. In addition, the Finance Minister lauded the drafting of the new Income Tax Bill as the first-ever comprehensive review of the Income Tax Act since 1961. She said that several members of the select committee of the Lok Sabha had informally appreciated the drafting of the IT Bill 2025. She expressed hope that 'Parliament actually looks at the good work done… we will welcome the suggestions by honourable members and… expect with enough engagement, discussion, and debate in the House… this bill… passes through Parliament's scrutiny.'
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
24-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
FM calls OGE delay 'unpardonable', urges action on five key tax priorities
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, on the 166th Income Tax Day on Thursday, sharply criticised delays in the issuance of Orders Giving Effect (OGEs), calling them 'unpardonable,' and urged the income tax department to act decisively on five priority areas identified during a high-level review in June 2025. OGE refers to the implementation of appellate or court decisions by tax officers. It ensures that the outcomes—such as refunds, reassessments, or adjustments—are formally carried out based on the ruling. 'After all the decisions are taken, the delay in OGE issuance is just not explainable. But we have a category—would you believe it? You have a category of OGE issuance delay. Why pray? The decisions are all done. You just have to issue the OGE. Unpardonable,' she said, addressing senior officials. Reinforcing the need for accountability, she said that good policies alone are not enough. What matters, actually, is timely execution. Referring to the progress made in redrafting the Income Tax Act, she added, 'For a group or the CBDT, which is able to reduce five lakh words of the 1961 Act within a matter of three months to give me a draft bill which is half the size of that earlier 1961 Act… you're able to do that, but you can't issue OGEs? What's going on?' Recalling the key action points from the June 2025 review, Sitharaman said: 'I would recall five of them (including the issue of OGE), which I would think are important for all of us to re-look at—not because things have changed from then to now, June 2025 to now, but to refresh ourselves that these were things which all of us spoke about together.' The first, she said, is to 'accelerate disposal of disputed tax demands pending before the faceless appellate authorities and ensure timely resolution of litigation backlog.' Second, departments must 'identify and withdraw departmental appeals falling below the revised monetary threshold announced during the Union Budget 2024–2025 within the next three months.' The Union Budget 2024–25 raised the monetary thresholds for filing departmental appeals in tax-related cases, setting the new limits at ₹60 lakh for tribunals, ₹2 crore for High Courts, and ₹5 crore for the Supreme Court. These enhanced limits apply to disputes under Direct Taxes, as well as legacy cases in Excise and Service Tax. The third priority is to 'ensure timely processing of tax refunds and proactive and timely resolution of taxpayer grievances,' said the Minister. Fourth, departments must 'analyse the grievances and devise strategies not only to resolve the existing pendency but also to address the challenges that are causing the grievances in the first place.' And fifth, Sitharaman said, is to 'undertake region-wise performance reviews to help identify factors hindering performance and streamline operations through indicators such as grievance disposal and orders giving effect issuance.' Calling the Income Tax Day 'the moment when we reaffirm the unsaid social contract between the state and the taxpayer,' Sitharaman said this contract must not be allowed to 'fray at the edges' or 'become loose, become diluted.' She urged officials to raise the benchmark and ensure that the reform process is matched by efficient delivery on the ground. In addition, the Finance Minister lauded the drafting of the new Income Tax Bill as the first-ever comprehensive review of the Income Tax Act since 1961. She said that several members of the select committee of the Lok Sabha had informally appreciated the drafting of the IT Bill 2025. She expressed hope that 'Parliament actually looks at the good work done… we will welcome the suggestions by honourable members and… expect with enough engagement, discussion, and debate in the House… this bill… passes through Parliament's scrutiny.'
Malaysiakini
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Malaysiakini
Judges are appointed by law, not lobby
COMMENT | The appointment of judges to Malaysia's superior courts is neither a subject for partisan debate nor should it be shaped by public sentiment or political interpretation. It is a constitutional duty, carried out through a deliberate and structured process rooted in the Federal Constitution. The recent appointment of Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh as the chief justice of Malaysia, along with other senior judicial positions, has drawn public attention. While differing views are expected in a democracy, such appointments must be examined through the lens of law, not political bias or speculation. Article 122B of the Federal Constitution provides the legal framework for the appointment of judges to the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal, and the High Courts. It states that such appointments shall be made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the prime minister and after consultation with the Conference of Rulers.
