Latest news with #JusticeIyer
Hindustan Times
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
CJI Gavai flags drift from ‘bail is rule & jail the exception'
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai on Sunday lamented that the Indian judiciary had somewhat lost sight of the cardinal legal principle that 'bail is the rule and jail the exception,' while underlining the pressing need to reinforce the constitutional value of personal liberty. Justice Gavai's remarks come amid increasing judicial and public scrutiny over delayed bail hearings (PTI) Delivering the 11th Justice VR Krishna Iyer Memorial Law Lecture in Kochi, Justice Gavai expressed concern over the growing culture of prolonged incarceration of undertrials and the tendency of courts to prioritise custodial detention over bail. 'In the recent past, this principle (bail is the rule) was somewhat forgotten,' he said, referring to Justice Krishna Iyer's pioneering contributions to bail jurisprudence and humane criminal procedure. It was Justice Iyer who laid down this principle through his judgments and fiercely championed it. 'I am happy to state that I had the opportunity in the last year, 2024, to reiterate this legal principle in the cases of Prabir Purkayastha, Manish Sisodia, and Kavita Vs ED,' said the CJI, making a strong case for reviving the pro-liberty judicial stance that was once the hallmark of Indian courts. Also Read | Supreme Court admin seeks removal of ex-CJI Chandrachud from official residence In the cases of Prabir Purkayastha, Manish Sisodia, and Kavita, the Supreme Court, with Justice Gavai on the bench, underscored the centrality of personal liberty in the criminal justice system while ruling that the deprivation of liberty cannot be justified without strict adherence to legal safeguards. These rulings reflected a conscious effort by the apex court to breathe life into Justice Iyer's principle that bail should be the norm, not the exception, and that liberty cannot be held hostage to procedural expediency. Quoting Justice Iyer's landmark ruling in Gudikanti Narasimhulu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1978), the CJI said: 'Heavy bail from poor man is obviously wrong. Poverty is society's malady and sympathy, not sternness, is the judicial response.' He added that Justice Iyer's jurisprudence reminded judges to consider factors such as the period spent in jail and the likelihood of delay in appeals while deciding bail pleas, instead of imposing onerous and exclusionary conditions. Justice Gavai's remarks come amid increasing judicial and public scrutiny over delayed bail hearings, procedural rigidity, and the lack of a uniform, compassionate approach to undertrial detention -- issues that have seen the Supreme Court question both high courts and district judiciary in recent months. The CJI, who will demit office in November, recalled that Justice Iyer's ideas continue to guide his own judicial reasoning, including in major decisions delivered last year. 'I relied on Justice Krishna Iyer's judicial philosophy in many cases, and I am still doing that,' he said. Also Read | Why Chief Justice BR Gavai got emotional: 'His dream has come true' In his speech, themed 'Role of Justice VR Krishna Iyer in Balancing the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy', Justice Gavai paid rich tribute to Justice Iyer's progressive blend of legal reasoning and social empathy. 'Justice Krishna Iyer stood up for the poor and the underprivileged, and remained a human rights champion, a crusader for social justice and the environment, and a doyen of civil liberties throughout his life,' he said. Justice Gavai highlighted how Justice Iyer's judicial philosophy reshaped several areas of constitutional law, from prison reform to affirmative action, from the right to life under Article 21 to the abolition of the death penalty. Justice Gavai also acknowedged Justice Iyer's seminal role in expanding the scope of Article 21 in Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India (1978), where the latter observed: 'Personal liberty makes for the worth of the human person.' These words, he said, formed the bedrock for future judicial pronouncements that recognised rights such as access to clean water, food, shelter and healthcare as integral to the right to life. Also Read | Interpretation of Constitution has to be pragmatic: CJI B R Gavai The CJI concluded. 'Every time a bench prioritizes substantive justice over technicalities... every time the court upholds human dignity and social equity, Justice Krishna Iyer's legacy is not just honoured, but actively lived.' Justice Iyer served as a Supreme Court judge from 1973 to 1980, leaving an indelible mark through his activist jurisprudence and deep empathy for the marginalised. He passed away on December 4, 2014, at the age of 100.
Time of India
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court quashes Delhi HC's Wikipedia takedown order
NEW DELHI: Favouring a robust debate in the media on issues pending in court, Supreme Court on Friday said the judiciary and the press must supplement each other as foundational pillars of democracy and held that a court should not tell the media to take down a report if it was not contemptuous. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court quashed 's order directing taking down of a Wikipedia page on proceedings on a defamation case filed against it by news agency ANI. It said healthy criticism and scrutiny by the media in sub judice cases would keep judicial caprice or vagaries in check. "Courts should welcome debates and constructive criticism... However, those who offer criticism should remember that judges cannot respond to such criticism, but if a publication scandalises the court or a judge or judges and if a case of contempt is made out, as highlighted by Justice Iyer in the sixth principle, certainly courts should take action. But it is not the duty of the court to tell the media: delete this, take that down," SC said. Referring to SC's earlier verdicts, the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said public scrutiny and gaze serve as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity and impartiality of the administration of justice. "Definitely, if a member of the public or a litigant or, for that matter, even the media tries to scandalise the court by making sweeping unfounded allegations against the court or the judge(s) or by imputing motives against the judge or judges who had passed a judicial order or had conducted the court proceedings, certainly the courts would be justified to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against such contemnors. This would also be a ground to direct postponement of publication as contempt of court is a reasonable restriction enumerated under Article 19(2) on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)," the court said. "For the improvement of any system, and that includes the judiciary, introspection is the key. That can happen only if there is a robust debate even on issues which are before the court. Both the judiciary and the media are foundational pillars of democracy, which is a basic feature of our Constitution. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now For a liberal democracy to thrive, both must supplement each other," the bench said. The court also relied on the recent verdict in the Imran Pratapgarhi case which highlighted the importance of freedom of expression and the duty of courts to uphold such freedom. "This court observed that sometimes, judges may not like spoken or written words but still it is the duty of the courts to uphold the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). Except the courts, there is no other institution which can uphold the fundamental rights of citizens. The courts must not be seen to regulate or stifle freedom of speech," it said.
