Latest news with #SureshKumarKait
Hindustan Times
7 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Case for diversity in higher courts
A former chief justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court, Suresh Kumar Kait, has alleged that the collegium, which makes the final selection of judges to constitutional courts, is 'dishonest' in its treatment of people from the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backwards Classes (OBC), while making appointments to the high courts. His claim rests on the fact that the number of judges from these social groups is not commensurate with their share in the country's population. Kait has proposed reservations to address this anomaly. Kait's very subjective description of the conduct of the collegium could be discarded, but his remark about the lack of diversity and representation in high courts surely calls for a conversation. To be sure, the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which guides appointments in constitutional courts, has not proposed caste quotas in judiciary. The collegium makes its choices using MoP as a guide and, after due consideration, which includes consultations with the government and review of feedback from State agencies, appoints the judges. Merit and seniority are considerations when the collegium looks at the candidates, but multiple chief justices of the Supreme Court have said they try to ensure that appointments reflect the social diversity of the country. However, data shows that despite the best intentions of the collegium, the higher judiciary remains mostly the preserve of upper caste Hindus. A response by the government in the Lok Sabha in December 2024 reveals that out of 684 high court judges appointed since 2018, 21 belong to SC category, 14 to ST category, and 82 belong to OBC category. In percentage terms, this is 3%, 2%, and 12% of the appointments, whereas the share of these groups in the population (as per the National Family Health Survey, 2019-2021) is 22%, 9.5%, and 42%. A data analysis by HT revealed that 75.6% of judges in the Supreme Court during 2010-25 belonged to Hindu upper castes, whereas OBC representation was limited to 7.8%. The representation trend has improved over the decades, though the change has been far from adequate. Kait's attempt to shame the collegium as 'dishonest' is uncalled for, but the data is glaring for anyone to ignore that Dalits, tribals and OBCs are underrepresented in constitutional courts. Appointments to constitutional posts have not followed any principle of affirmative action, but representation has become a political question — so much so that no party can ignore it in the selection of people to ministerial positions and high public office. The inclusion of caste enumeration in the census and legislation on women's reservation in Parliament suggest that representation and diversity have become central to public life and appointments. The judiciary's turn has come.
Hindustan Times
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Collegium is unfair to SC/ST/OBC: Ex-HC chief justice
Former chief justice of Madhya Pradesh high court, Suresh Kumar Kait, on Sunday demanded reservation for underprivileged sections in the judiciary, and said the collegium system for selection of judges to constitutional courts is 'dishonest' in its treatment of people from the scheduled castes (SC), scheduled tribes (ST) and other backward classes (OBC). In his speech, Kait sought proportionate representation (HT PHOTO) Addressing a programme in Bhopal organised by the Confederation of Dalit, OBC, Minorities and Adivasi Organisations (DOMA), Kait said, 'I was a judge of Delhi high court and I was the only one from these groups. There was no judge from SC, ST and OBC (backward class). Till date, no other SC, ST and BC advocate has become a judge. This is something that we need to think about.' To be sure, a database of Supreme Court judges created by Hindustan Times showed that there wasn't much change in the proportion of OBC and SC judges appointed by the collegium system, when compared to that appointed by the executive till the collegium system was adopted in 1993. No such database exists for high court judges. In his speech, Kait sought proportionate representation: 'This country does not belong to any one caste but to all castes and all religions. The participation in it should be as much as the number (proportion in population.' He added that in institutions with no reservation, such as the judiciary, there was very less representation of the underprivileged. 'I am considering only the judiciary. In the Supreme Court, only eight judges including Justice Gavai became judge from SC/ST and backward classes. It is not like that there are no lawyers from the backward classes.' That may be a bit of an underestimate. HT's database showed that 27 out of the 279 Supreme Court judges so far have been from OBC, SC or ST backgrounds. To be sure, that is still a low proportion. Kait added that OBCs, SCs and STs account for 90% of Madhya Pradesh's population. 'But, till date, not a single ST-SC judge has come to the Madhya Pradesh High Court from service nor has become an advocate judge.' In the 2011 census, SCs were 15.6% of the state's population and STs were 21.6% of the population. There are no estimates for OBC numbers in the state. Raising the demand for reservation, he said, 'If I talk about the high courts of the whole country, then SC, ST and backward class together make up 15 to 16% of judges as of today. This will continue until you raise your voice.'
New Indian Express
23-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Tensions escalate between lawyer groups over installation of Ambedkar statue at Madhya Pradesh HC
In a related development, Bhim Army national president Satpal Tanwar announced on Friday that he would visit Gwalior on May 26. He also appealed to Bhim Sena activists in Rajasthan to gather at the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court and remove the statue of Sage Manu if the installation of Ambedkar's statue at the Gwalior Bench is not permitted. Meanwhile, Madhya Pradesh Congress spokesperson and former MLA Shailendra Patel, who belongs to the OBC community, described the opposition to Ambedkar's statue as an act of 'disrespect to the Indian Constitution.' The controversy dates back to February 19, when a group of lawyers met the then Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Suresh Kumar Kait, and submitted a memorandum seeking approval for the statue. The Chief Justice reportedly gave verbal consent, after which a local committee was formed and a platform was constructed within the Gwalior Bench premises. However, a significant section of the High Court Bar Association in Gwalior opposed the initiative, claiming that the broader bar community was not informed and that necessary permissions from the building committee were not obtained. This disagreement triggered tensions between the two lawyer factions. On May 10, members of the Bar Association hoisted the national flag at the proposed statue site. They stated that the act was to commemorate Operation Sindoor and expressed their intention to erect a 100-foot-high tricolour at the location in the future. On May 14, a group of lawyers arrived for the statue's installation but were met with strong resistance from members of the Bar Association. Tensions escalated further on May 17, when lawyers opposing the statue reportedly assaulted Bhim Army leader Rupesh Ken and his associates outside the High Court premises in Gwalior, despite a heavy police presence. The Bhim Army members had come in support of the statue's installation. Subsequently, on May 19, lawyers from both factions travelled to Jabalpur to meet outgoing Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, who urged them to maintain peace. Since then, both sides have continued to hold discussions.
New Indian Express
23-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Tensions rise amid stand-off between lawyer groups over Ambedkar statue at Madhya Pradesh HC
In a related development, Bhim Army national president Satpal Tanwar announced on Friday that he would visit Gwalior on May 26. He also appealed to Bhim Sena activists in Rajasthan to gather at the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court and remove the statue of Sage Manu if the installation of Ambedkar's statue at the Gwalior Bench is not permitted. Meanwhile, Madhya Pradesh Congress spokesperson and former MLA Shailendra Patel, who belongs to the OBC community, described the opposition to Ambedkar's statue as an act of 'disrespect to the Indian Constitution.' The controversy dates back to February 19, when a group of lawyers met the then Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Suresh Kumar Kait, and submitted a memorandum seeking approval for the statue. The Chief Justice reportedly gave verbal consent, after which a local committee was formed and a platform was constructed within the Gwalior Bench premises. However, a significant section of the High Court Bar Association in Gwalior opposed the initiative, claiming that the broader bar community was not informed and that necessary permissions from the building committee were not obtained. This disagreement triggered tensions between the two lawyer factions. On May 10, members of the Bar Association hoisted the national flag at the proposed statue site. They stated that the act was to commemorate Operation Sindoor and expressed their intention to erect a 100-foot-high tricolour at the location in the future. On May 14, a group of lawyers arrived for the statue's installation but were met with strong resistance from members of the Bar Association. Tensions escalated further on May 17, when lawyers opposing the statue reportedly assaulted Bhim Army leader Rupesh Ken and his associates outside the High Court premises in Gwalior, despite a heavy police presence. The Bhim Army members had come in support of the statue's installation. Subsequently, on May 19, lawyers from both factions travelled to Jabalpur to meet outgoing Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, who urged them to maintain peace. Since then, both sides have continued to hold discussions.
Time of India
22-05-2025
- Health
- Time of India
HC directs parity in retirement age for vet docs
Bhopal: A division bench of the MP High Court directed the state govt to amend the service rules of veterinary doctors and raise their retirement age to 65, similar to allopathy and Ayush doctors. The court also declared as 'null and void' the notification of the state govt through which the retirement age of allopathic and Ayush doctors was raised to 65 years, excluding veterinary doctors. Hearing a petition from Dr Kedar Singh Tomar of Bhopal and a host of veterinary doctors from across the state, the bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain delivered the verdict. The veterinary doctors, in their petition, contended that they have a similar service profile as allopathic or Ayush doctors. Raising their retirement age to the exclusion of veterinary doctors was a violation of the fundamental right of equality. The petitioner said that they joined veterinary services between 1983 and 1988. They are working under the animal husbandry department, while allopathic and Ayush doctors are working under the health department. Senior counsel K C Ghildiyal and advocate Suyash Mohan Guru, who appeared for the petitioners, said that in 2011, the state govt raised the retirement age of allopathic and Ayush doctors to 65 years, while the retirement age of veterinary doctors continued to be 62 years, which is unjust. After hearing the arguments, the court allowed the petition and asked the state govt to bring parity in the retirement age of veterinary, allopathic, and Ayush doctors.
