Latest news with #TheGlobalJurists
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Ex-SC judge flags executive interference in judges' appointment process
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B Lokur on Wednesday said there had been a considerable interference by the executive in the appointment process of judges. He was speaking at an event organised by The Global Jurists on the topic 'Morality in Judiciary, A Paradigm or a Paradox'. "Now, about the appointment of judges. We have had a lot of problems in the recent past. There has been, I think, a considerable interference by the executive in the appointment process," he said. "The Memorandum of Procedure (MOP) was finalised a long time back. But despite the MOP, which was, by the way, drafted in consultation with the Government of India, there have been all kinds of problems in its implementation," Justice Lokur added. In the appointment of judges, the former the former apex court judge said, "I believe, for reasons, that it has nothing to do with his merit. But it has something to do with a few cases that they decided,". He said that if the appointment process of judges was in the hands of the executive, "a kind of mischief" could be played. "You can appoint some person in the beginning, and a senior person can be kept pending for about six months or seven months so that he loses or he or she loses the seniority, and this is what is happening. Outstanding advocates who should have been appointed are not being appointed," Justice Lokur said. He said the process of making the appointment process less opaque needed to be deliberated upon. "Opaque not only from the side of the collegium of the high court or the collegium of the Supreme Court, but also from the side of the government," Justice Lokur said. He said that at present there were two impeachment motions pending against judges, one against Justice Yashwant Varma in the Parliament and the second against Justice Shekhar Yadav with the Rajya Sabha Chairperson. "I think for the first time in the history of the country, two impeachment motions are pending. I think we have to be very careful about the kind of persons that we appoint, and second, to keep a check on the judges while they are on the bench to make sure that these kinds of incidents do not happen," Justice Lokur said. Underlining the importance of delivering easily understandable judgments, he said, "I had to deal with a couple of judgments written by a particular judge. The English that he used, nobody could understand. The judges could not understand it. The lawyers could not understand it. So you know, this kind of quality is being demonstrated now." Regarding the transfer of judges, he said, "On the other hand, we have situations where judges are being transferred left and right without any reason. Delhi has had the experience in the recent past of Justice S Muralidhar (from Delhi High Court) -- everybody knows that this was during the riots in 2020, for passing an order which, for some reason, the government did not like." Justice Lokur, on post-retirement appointment of judges, said, "Now we have had a situation where a former Chief Justice of India has been apparently rewarded by a seat in the Rajya Sabha. We have another judge who has been rewarded with the governorship of one state. The third judge has also been awarded the governorship of another state." "We have had judges who have retired and joined politics immediately after. We had a sitting judge who resigned and joined politics, and actually got elected as a member of Parliament. We need to sort things out," he added.
United News of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- United News of India
'What is legal and constitutional is moral': Justice Abhay Oka's powerful call for judicial integrity and constitutional morality
New Delhi, Aug 6 (UNI) 'Traditional morality is shaped by popular opinion. But judges are bound only by the Constitution.' In a thought-provoking keynote address that struck at the heart of judicial ethics, Justice Abhay S. Oka, former judge of the Supreme Court of India, delivered a scathing and insightful critique of the misuse of personal moral convictions in legal decision-making. Delivering a lecture on "Morality in Judiciary: A Paradigm or a Paradox", hosted by The Global Jurists, Justice Oka made it emphatically clear that for judges, morality must align solely with constitutional and legal principles. 'My personal view is simple,' he declared. 'Something which is legal and constitutional is moral. Something which is not legal and not constitutional is immoral nothing else matters for a judge.' Justice Oka argued that judges must resist the temptation to allow personal beliefs, societal expectations, or political noise to influence their decisions. 'A judge may follow a religion, hold personal moral values, or believe in a philosophy. But once he assumes office, these views must be locked away in a watertight compartment,' he said. He strongly cautioned that moral convictions have no place in jurisprudence. Referring to cases where individuals spend over a decade in prison without legal evidence, he called such decisions 'moral convictions masquerading as justice.' Justice Oka urged for a shift in how we view the judiciary at the grassroots level. 'It is wrong to call them subordinate or lower courts. They are the main courts of this country because it is here that the common man goes for justice,' he stated. Recalling his time as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, he said his first administrative order was to ensure the term 'subordinate courts' was discarded. 'The real mistake we made in the last 75 years was not focusing enough on the trial and district judiciary.' Justice Oka addressed the rising pressure judges face, particularly in heinous crimes or economic offenses. He cited how public outrage, media coverage, or political statements such as a Chief Minister declaring an accused will be hanged can create an atmosphere of fear for grassroots judges. 'The involvement of large sums of money or the gravity of the allegations may be one factor, but judges must decide bail strictly within the four corners of the law,' he affirmed. He added, 'Judges must be prepared to deliver verdicts that are not popular.' Touching upon exceptions, he noted that in rare cases, judges may invoke Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice. However, even in such circumstances, he reiterated that decisions must stem from constitutional morality, not personal values. He also referenced dissenting judgments such as Justice H.R. Khanna's in the ADM Jabalpur case and the Kesavananda Bharati verdict to highlight the importance of judges staying true to constitutional principles, even at great personal cost. 'Three judges who gave the majority opinion in Kesavananda Bharati were superseded. But they were not swayed by the views of the ruling government.' Justice Oka acknowledged the flaws in the current judicial appointment system, particularly the delay between Collegium recommendations and appointments. He cited the example of Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, who withdrew his consent for judgeship after waiting nearly a year. 'The real challenge for Chief Justices is to convince good lawyers to join the Bench. But delay in appointments dissuades them,' he said, urging immediate government attention to this issue. Justice Oka concluded by recognizing the crisis of credibility in the judiciary and called for a recommitment to constitutional morality. 'Judges must set aside personal notions of morality, faith, religion, or political inclinations. That is the only way to meet the challenges before the judiciary today.' 'The job of a judge is not to preach. The question is not whether an action is good or bad, but whether it is legal or illegal.' He emphasized that criticism of judgments must be legal and balanced, urging the public and professionals to acknowledge both the right and wrong decisions of the courts. Justice Oka's powerful address served as a sobering reminder that justice cannot and must not be shaped by personal or societal moralities. Instead, it must emerge from the spirit and letter of the Constitution. 'The Constitution is our moral compass. That is the only morality a judge must know,' he concluded to resounding applause from a hall filled with eminent judges and legal luminaries. UNI SNG RN
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Considerable interference by executive in appointment process of judges: Ex-SC judge
New Delhi, Former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B Lokur on Wednesday said there had been a considerable interference by the executive in the appointment process of judges. Considerable interference by executive in appointment process of judges: Ex-SC judge He was speaking at an event organised by The Global Jurists on the topic 'Morality in Judiciary, A Paradigm or a Paradox'. "Now, about the appointment of judges. We have had a lot of problems in the recent past. There has been, I think, a considerable interference by the executive in the appointment process," he said. "The Memorandum of Procedure was finalised a long time back. But despite the MOP, which was, by the way, drafted in consultation with the Government of India, there have been all kinds of problems in its implementation," Justice Lokur added. In the appointment of judges, the former the former apex court judge said, "I believe, for reasons, that it has nothing to do with his merit. But it has something to do with a few cases that they decided," . He said that if the appointment process of judges was in the hands of the executive, "a kind of mischief" could be played. "You can appoint some person in the beginning, and a senior person can be kept pending for about six months or seven months so that he loses or he or she loses the seniority, and this is what is happening. Outstanding advocates who should have been appointed are not being appointed," Justice Lokur said. He said the process of making the appointment process less opaque needed to be deliberated upon. "Opaque not only from the side of the collegium of the high court or the collegium of the Supreme Court, but also from the side of the government," Justice Lokur said. He said that at present there were two impeachment motions pending against judges, one against Justice Yashwant Varma in the Parliament and the second against Justice Shekhar Yadav with the Rajya Sabha Chairperson. "I think for the first time in the history of the country, two impeachment motions are pending. I think we have to be very careful about the kind of persons that we appoint, and second, to keep a check on the judges while they are on the bench to make sure that these kinds of incidents do not happen," Justice Lokur said. Underlining the importance of delivering easily understandable judgments, he said, "I had to deal with a couple of judgments written by a particular judge. The English that he used, nobody could understand. The judges could not understand it. The lawyers could not understand it. So you know, this kind of quality is being demonstrated now." Regarding the transfer of judges, he said, "On the other hand, we have situations where judges are being transferred left and right without any reason. Delhi has had the experience in the recent past of Justice S Muralidhar everybody knows that this was during the riots in 2020, for passing an order which, for some reason, the government did not like." Justice Lokur, on post-retirement appointment of judges, said, "Now we have had a situation where a former Chief Justice of India has been apparently rewarded by a seat in the Rajya Sabha. We have another judge who has been rewarded with the governorship of one state. The third judge has also been awarded the governorship of another state." "We have had judges who have retired and joined politics immediately after. We had a sitting judge who resigned and joined politics, and actually got elected as a member of Parliament. We need to sort things out," he added. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Judges must keep aside ideas of morality, religion, political philosophy: Ex-SC judge Abhay S Oka
New Delhi, Former Supreme Court judge Abhay S Oka on Wednesday said when a lawyer becomes a judge, they must keep aside ideas of morality, religion and political philosophy. 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.
