The Brave Pedestrian

To The Secretary Department of Justice, Govt of India New Delhi. collegium-suggestions@gov.in collegium-improvement@gov.in Suggestions to improve the working of Collegium System for appointing/elevating High Court and Supreme Court judges Dear Sir, Thank you for soliciting public opinion on this important issue. Appointment and elevation of judges of the higher judiciary is indeed the key to ensuring efficient and unbiased administration of justice for citizens of India. My humble suggestions are as below: Transparency 1)     Judges desirous of being selected, elevated or transferred should be required to formally apply to the collegium, clearly stating their own eligibility for such selection or elevation. 2)     Individual members of the collegium may propose or support eligible candidates for selection, elevation, transfer to a different High Court etc., but this should be done in writing to the chief of that collegium (Chi...

“MY LORDS SHOULD WEAR A BURQA and roam in the court corridors to hear the way lawyers talk about the judges of this court. You will get first-hand account of the rotting justice delivery system. The kind of lawyers who are being appointed as judges is a disgrace,” senior advocate Dushyant Dave, arguing for the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), told a Constitution Bench led by Justice J S Khehar. “It is a shame how every court is going an extra mile to protect politicians and film stars, and ordinary citizens are deprived of justice,” he added. Read  http://tinyurl.com/ burqa-judges Image: http://tinyurl.com/SC-Judges-burqa Warm Regards, Krish 9821588114

Judges selected by the collegium for higher judiciary are sometimes worse than useless, according to Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi. Rohatgi gave the instance of Justice Cyriac Joseph. As a judge of Delhi High Court, Justice Joseph performed miserably. He reserved more than 100 judgments and went out on being transferred without delivering the judgments, so that all the cases had to be reheard. Later, as Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court, Cyriac Joseph delivered 162 judgments of which 89 "cannot be even called orders as they did not decide rights of the parties. These are merely stating that the petition has become infructuous or allowing the petition to be withdrawn. Of the 162, only two could be called judgments... But both these were authored by the other judge who was part of the bench," the AG said. Justice Cyriac Joseph was very successful at climbing the career ladder. Only one month after being appointed as permanent judge of Kerala High Court in July 19...

It is a lie that Government currently has no say in appointing judges, and therefore Judicial Appointments Commission Act is required for giving government a say. The fact is that government has been continually influencing the appointment of judges by the Collegium from the back door. Recommendations to the collegium are made through the back door by big-ticket lawyers who have access, like Manu Singhvi, Kapil Sibal and Arun Jaitley. These are the mid dlemen or puppet masters who make judicial appointments happen, by trading favours (land allotments, post-retirement appointments etc) with collegium judges. They are king-makers or "judge-makers" who approach the collegium on behalf of government, powerful business lobbies and political parties, to promote their favourite candidates. The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) will only enable the government to have additional control over judicial appointments -- some extra bargaining leverage to make the collegium judges be...

The legendary Justice Sujata Manohar was appointed as Chief Justice of Bombay High Court on 5th January 1994. About three months later, on 21st April 1994, she was transferred as Chief Justice of Kerala High Court. Then, on 8th November 1994, Justice Sujata Manohar became judge of the Supreme Court of India. Justice Anil R Dave, a sitting judge of Supreme Court, assumed the office of Chief Justice of Bombay High Court on 11th Feb  2010. And then, just about two months later on 30th April 2010, he was elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court. Instances of such super-short tenures of Chief Justice are abundant. One finds dozens of instances. Bilal Nazki, a sitting judge of Bombay High Court, was made Chief Justice of Orissa High Court a mere FOUR DAYS before his retirement at the age of 65. Mr Nazki moved to Bombay High Court in January 2008. He moved from Bombay to become Chief Justice of Orissa High Court on 14 November 2009. He retired four days later, upon attaining the ...

A tiny “ruling clique” of Supreme Court judges, led by the Chief Justice of India, currently decides which judge is to be elevated to High Courts and Supreme Court, or made Chief Justice of High Courts or Supreme Court. In making these appointments, this clique is guided by career aspirations of, and friendships with, individual judges rather than what is good for the judiciary as a whole. As a result, Chief Justices of high courts are quite often appointed for a couple of mo nths, before being elevated further. This ruling clique is called the “collegium”. There is no mention of the collegium in the Constitution of India. The collegium system, which has been in use since 1993, relies on two of its own judgments, and one opinion, collectively known as the Three Judges Cases. The court evolved the principle of judicial independence to mean that no other branch of the state -- including the legislature and the executive -- would have any say in the appointment of judges. In July...

A tiny “ruling clique” of Supreme Court judges, led by the Chief Justice of India, currently decides which judge is to be elevated to High Courts and Supreme Court, or made Chief Justice of High Courts or Supreme Court. In making these appointments, this clique is guided by career aspirations of, and friendships with, individual judges rather than what is good for the judiciary as a whole. As a result, Chief Justices of high courts are quite often appointed for a couple of mo nths, before being elevated further. This ruling clique is called the “collegium”. There is no mention of the collegium in the Constitution of India. The collegium system, which has been in use since 1993, relies on two of its own judgments, and one opinion, collectively known as the Three Judges Cases. The court evolved the principle of judicial independence to mean that no other branch of the state -- including the legislature and the executive -- would have any say in the appointment of judges. In July...

The judiciary as an institution is only as good as its judges... and judges, being human, can easily be offered temptations by government. Judges nearing retirement age hear PILs against government, knowing that after retiring, they may be given lucrative & prestigious jobs by government. So they openly favour government and politicians, and frown at public interest litigants and activist citizens. Judicial independence can exist under ideal conditions... but conditions in India are far from ideal. Like  ·  Comment  ·  Share

Many lawyers who defend habitual criminals BECOME JUDGES in the normal course of events. Our justice system mandates lawyers to defend criminals by using all methods fair and foul. Successful lawyers are invited by the Bar Council to become judges. Such judges have an inclination to obstruct the prosecution, enable destruction of evidence and intimidation of witnesses, to help criminals go scot-free... don't they? Many judges at all levels of judiciary, including chief justic es, have such track records. By throwing procedural obstructions in the path of prosecution with endless adjournments and stay orders, and knowingly creating circumstances for destruction of evidence and intimidation of prosecution witnesses, they help criminals escape punishment. This fatal flaw in our judicial system is generally overlooked. We need to change this grave flaw in the system of appointing judges.   Like · Comment · Share

High court judges nowadays are unusually eager to dismiss Public Interest Litigations (PILs). They go to great lengths to avoid admitting PILs. They show great zeal in defending the corrupt government from citizens. Is it because they are beneficiaries of government generosity? Like · Comment · Share

India's judiciary is NOT a thinking institution, and it does not share our democratic temperament. The only way it allows a reformist citizen to approach it is as a litigant, through a Public Interest Litigation... but there, it sits in judgment on its own cause. Needless to say, it fails to see the need to change its self-indulgent ways. Judiciary does not have any forum where citizens, judges, lawyers and others can sit down together and discuss as EQUAL STAKEHOLDERS. Such  a forum is not possible, because of its superiority complex and self-righteousness. This institution is therefore incapable of introspection, reflection and self-correction. This ancient fossilized institution is a repository of all the monarchical bad-habits that were discarded by the British in the last century. It has no temperament of liberalism or reformism. It is not open to correction from government or citizens... and that is the reason We The People will have to dismantle the entire judicia...

Markandeya Katju said Allahabad HC was a hotbed of “uncle judges” who favoured the family members of their brother judges – enabling them to become very successful as lawyers, and very rich soon after launching their practice. Like  ·  Comment  ·  Share

The government is the biggest litigant in the country, accounting for about 20% of all cases in all sorts of courts. It is the single biggest source of funds for the legal community -- often paying indecent amounts of money to counsels and law officers for defending or appealing cases that are indefensible. Is it any surprise that the government is the most favoured litigant? Judges are openly biased in favour of the government. Public Interest Litigants usually find this out the hard way. Most PILs don’t get admitted, or are summarily disposed of with a weak and ineffective order. Like  ·  Comment  ·  Share

The Indian State is keeping lakhs of people in jail without a trial for months and sometimes years, all in the name of maintaining law-and-order. It is called "judicial custody". By refusing bail and keeping people in overcrowded lockups, Indian police, public prosecutor and magistrate keep up the traditions of British ruling classes, showing the masses who is boss! The prevalence of lengthy judicial custody exposes the WILLFUL IGNORANCE OF WE THE PEOPLE. As long as you and I  are willing to look the other way and pretend to be unaware, our ruling classes will continue to systematically treat lakhs of our fellow-citizens like caged animals... until one day, it will be your turn, or mine. If you value your freedom, raise your voice against this evil practice. Don't remain a silent spectator. Like  ·  Comment  ·  Share

It is wrongly believed that Judicial Appointments Commission Act is now giving government a say in the appointment of judges. The government has always had a say in appointing judges, albeit from the back door. The JAC will only bring the government's role out in the open. Peep through the wall of secrecy behind which appointments and elevations have been happening in higher judiciary. Politics, lies, sex and money-trails lurk within. The public got a hint in a viral video sh owing a senior lady lawyer giving sexual favours to Adv. Manu Singhvi, in hopes of being recommended for judgeship. The matter was hushed up with money. Media did not raise the issue again. Big Ticket lawyers like Manu Singhvi, Kapil Sibal and Arun Jaitley are middlemen or puppet masters who make judicial appointments happen. They are king-makers or "judge-makers" who act on behalf of government and business lobbies. Like  ·  Comment  ·  Share