Friday, 19 July 2013

Corruption in Indian Judiciary

Corruption in Indian Judiciary
8 of 16 CJIs were corrupt: Ex-Law Minister
Friday, September 17, 2010, 09:08            
Zeenews Bureau
New Delhi: Former Union Law Minister Shanti Bhushan Thursday told the Supreme Court that at least eight of the 16 chief justices of India (CJIs) were "definitely corrupt".
In an affidavit filed Thursday, senior counsel Shanti Bhushan said that six of the CJIs were "definitely honest" and he could not comment on the remaining two judges.
The senior counsel sought to be impleaded in a case in which his son Prashant Bhushan is facing contempt proceedings.
Sixteen CJIs that Shanti Bhushan has mentioned in his affidavit are: Justice Rangnath Mishra, Justice K.N. Singh, Justice M.H. Kaina, Justice L.M. Sharma, Justice M.N. Venkatachalliah, Justice A.M. Ahemadi, Justice J.S. Verma, Justice M.M. Punchhi, Justice A.S. Anand, Justice S.P. Bharucha, Justice B.N. Kirpal, Justice G.B. Pathak, Justice Rajendra Babu, Justice R.C. Lohati, Justice V.N. Khare and Justice Y.K. Sabharwal.
As per reports, the Bhushan has submitted the names of the eight corrupt judges in a sealed envelope to the apex court. Shanti Bhushan in his affidavit said that two former CJIs had personally told him that their immediate predecessors and immediate successors were corrupt judges. He said that the names of those four CJIs were included in the list of eight corrupt CJIs.
The plea, if accepted by the apex court is likely to open a can of worms and renew calls for a total clean up in the Indian judiciary.
The 82-year-old lawyer and his advocate son Prashant Bhushan are well known for their aggressive campaign against corruption in judiciary.
Prashant Bhushan is facing a contempt of court proceeding for writing an article on corruption in Indian judiciary and allegedly casting aspersions on CJI SH Kapadia and his predecessor Justice KG Balakrishnan.
Earlier on July 14, the Supreme Court upheld the maintainability of the suo motu contempt action initiated against advocate Prashant Bhushan for casting aspersions on CJI Kapadia and his predecessor Justice KG Balakrishnan.
A three-judge Bench of Justices Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph and H L Dattu asked Bhushan to file his affidavit within 12 weeks and posted the matter for final hearing to November 10.
"We have upheld the maintainability of the notice and have decided to hear the matter on merits," the Bench said.
Bhushan had earlier questioned the maintainability of the notice issued by the apex court on the contempt application moved by senior advocate Harish Salve for the alleged contemptuous remarks in a news magazine. Salve had moved the application while acting as the amicus curaie in the Forest Bench.

The alleged contemnor advocate had in an interview to 'Tehelka' magazine made the remarks against Justice Kapadia in 2009 as well as some other judges and previous CJIs.
He had alleged Justice Kapadia, being a member of the Forest Bench along with then Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan, should not have heard the matter relating to Vedanta Sterlite Group as he held shares of the company.
Justice Kapadia later recused himself from hearing a matter pertaining to the public offer made by London-based Vedanta Resources to buy additional stake in iron ore exporting firm Sesa Goa as he happens to be shareholder of a sister company.
The court had also issued a notice to Editor-in-Chief of Tehelka Tarun Tejpal which had carried Bhushan's interview.
Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing for Bhushan, had earlier argued before the Bench that it should not proceed with the contempt proceedings as there is a serious risk that it will gain an impression that it is being issued for suppressing the uncomfortable facts about the judiciary.
"If the matter is heard, the outcome can bring much more tragedy," he had said adding Salve's application was not maintainable and should be dismissed.
The senior advocate had submitted that the power of the court to take suo motu contempt action has to be used sparingly in the rarest of rare case.
For Zee News’s Updates, follow us on Twitter , Facebook, Google+, Pinterest
First Published: Friday, September 17, 2010, 09:08



CJI Altamas Kabir delivers 2 key judgements, hours before demitting office
By ET Bureau | 19 Jul, 2013, 05.29AM IST20 comments |Post a Comment
 An unfazed and cheerful Kabir, though, quoted from Gray’s Elegy “the path of glory leads but to the grave”.
An unfazed and cheerful Kabir, though, quoted from Gray’s Elegy “the path of glory leads but to the grave”.
ET SPECIAL:Checkout Luxury Home Trends
NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir delivered two key judgements, on admissions and reservations in education, hours before demitting his office on Thursday, which were soon mired in a controversy reminiscent of his scandal-ridden short stint in office.
The first ruling holds that there cannot be any relaxation at the super-speciality level in AIIMS. Merit should be the only criteria. Activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan raised possible conflict of interest issues on the issue of the CJI taking up the issue of reservations in AIIMS super-speciality posts, saying that he was under treatment of the very same doctors.
The second ruling says that Medical Council of India cannot introduce a single national eligibility-cum-entrance test for all medical and BDS courses in the country. This will have the effect of denuding states, state-run universities and all medical colleges and institutions from admitting students to MBBS, BDS and PG courses, according to their own procedures, beliefs and dispensations, which is an integral part of their right to administer these institutions.
The ruling, in favour of private institutions, created a different kind of controversy. It was allegedly leaked to interested private educational institutions way before it was supposed to be delivered. Lawyers said that the ruling would allow these institutions to make merry by admitting their own students for hefty capitation fees. A legal website even predicted the number of pages and paras in the ruling and a possible dissent by one of the judges.
Justice Anil R. Dave did dissent with the majority of Kabir and Justice Vikramjit Sen as forecast. The CJI, accosted by media persons, would only say that he was "shocked" by the circulation of the judgement even before it was pronounced. An unfazed and cheerful Kabir, though, quoted from Gray's Elegy "the path of glory leads but to the grave", saying he had done his best, enjoyed his stint in office thoroughly and would now go back to "Calcutta" and spend time with his granddaughter and wife.

Kabir's short stint as CJI has been buffeted by controversies. He initially restored oral mentioning by high-profile lawyers on urgent matters, opening a veritable Pandora's Box of controversies. In his eagerness to please everybody, the soft-spoken Kabir, quickly dispensed justice in urgent matters, prompting lawyers to praise him as a "relief-giving judge" while condemning him for passing orders without much thought.

List of the Chief Justices of India 

No.
Name
Period of office
Days
Bar
1
January 26, 1950
November 6, 1951
649
2
November 7, 1951
January 3, 1954
788
3
January 4, 1954
December 22, 1954
352
4
December 23, 1954
January 31, 1956‡‡
404
5
February 1, 1956
September 30, 1959
1337
6
October 1, 1959
January 31, 1964
1583
7
February 1, 1964
March 15, 1966
773
8
March 16, 1966
June 29, 1966
105
9
June 30, 1966
April 11, 1967‡‡
285
10
April 12, 1967
February 24, 1968
318
11
February 25, 1968
December 16, 1970
1025
12
December 17, 1970
January 21, 1971
35
13
Jan 22, 1971
April 25, 1973
824
14
April 26, 1973
January 27, 1977
1372
15
January 28, 1977
February 21, 1978
389
16
February 22, 1978
July 11, 1985
26
17
July 12, 1985
December 20, 1986
526
18
December 21, 1986
June 18, 1989‡‡
940
19
June 19, 1989
December 17, 1989
181
20
December 18, 1989
September 25, 1990
281
21
September 26, 1990
November 24, 1991
424
22
November 25, 1991
December 12, 1991
17
23
December 13, 1991
November 17, 1992
340
24
Nov 18, 1992
Feb 11, 1993
85
25
February 12, 1993
October 24, 1994
619
26
October 25, 1994
March 24, 1997
881
27
March 25, 1997
January 17, 1998
298
28
January 18, 1998
October 9, 1998
264
29
October 10, 1998
January 11, 2001
824
30
January 11, 2001
May 6, 2002
480
31
May 6, 2002
November 8, 2002
186
32
November 8, 2002
December 19, 2002
41
33
Dec 19, 2002
May 2, 2004
500
34
May 2, 2004
June 1, 2004
30
35
June 1, 2004
November 1, 2005
518
36
November 1, 2005
January 13, 2007
438
37
January 13, 2007
May 11, 2010
1214
38
May 12, 2010
Sep 28, 2012
870
39
September 29, 2012
July 18, 2013
293
40
July 19, 2013
Incumbent
0

No comments:

Post a Comment