CJI’s appeal to increase the retirement age of judges is not new but the move should also factor in lower court vacancies
The issue of increasing the tenure of judges has been hanging fire since the UPA regime and given the pendency of cases, the need to ensure continuity of hearings and proper assessment in crucial matters, there has been much argument in its favour. In that sense, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi’s letters to the Prime Minister asking for increasing the retirement ages of the judges of the Supreme Court and High Court by three more years aren’t new and merely add traction to a process that is expected to streamline our judicial process. He has even sought the revival of a practice that would allow retired top court judges to be assigned pending cases, which is permissible under the Constitution. Gogoi has essentially argued for using the full range of a judge’s experience and maturity, saying an increased timeline would allow him/her to give an educated and informed judgment in cases. Most judges, he feels, are close to retirement when they have evolved to their best. Most importantly, such a move, if legislated, would be in line with judicial norms worldwide.
Of course, the pendency of cases, 48 lakh to be precise in the higher courts, indeed needs redressal. With judges retiring and a lengthy process involved in filling up a vacancy, the process for which is initiated during the last lap of the retiree, there is an ever-widening vacuum. Besides, if retired judges can be asked to preside over tribunals, there should be no reason why their services cannot be, therefore, availed for a little longer in their official capacity. However, if a review does indeed take off, equal attention needs to be given to the lower courts, where pendency and vacancies pose an unprecedented crisis of backlogs. If Law Ministry figures are anything to go by, then the judge-population ratio in India is among the lowest in the world at about 20 judges per 10 lakh people, compared to double that number in the West. Earlier CJIs had also driven home the point that although the Law Commission had recommended increase in the number of judges from 10 judges per 10 lakh people to 50 in 1987, nothing had moved since then. Yet the sanctioned strength of High Court judges has increased from 906 judges in June 2014 to 1,079 judges in December 2018 and those of district/subordinate courts from 20,214 in 2014 to 22,833 in 2018. Gogoi’s predecessor Dipak Misra, too, had expressed concern over the national backlog touching 3.3 crore cases, a major chunk of them clearly in the subordinate courts. Besides, with India’s projected population spiral over the next decade, the judge-population ratio will only go up. Therefore, the shortage of judges should be looked at holistically across hierarchies because pendency at all levels only lends credence to the theory that justice delayed is justice denied and entrenches our exasperation about a redressal system that does not guarantee closure. Of course, there are both advantages and disadvantages that will have to be thoroughly considered. Increasing the age of retirement for Supreme Court and High Court judges undoubtedly strengthens the available resource of expertise and helps in appointing new judges in a graded rather than a rushed manner and without affecting existing judges. Faster disposal also means relief for litigants, not to mention their costs. And of course, the sense of continuity will also keep the judiciary independent of political expediency and insulate it from imperatives of the government of the day. The same logic can, of course, always be turned on its head to argue that while intended to free the judiciary from political pressure, the courts could, in fact, become more politicised. Sure of their longer tenure, judges, while believed to be bipartisan, could also be ideologically prone to select their own kind in the hierarchy, considering their extension was granted in a certain political environment. This concern has particularly arisen in the US Supreme Court, where lifetime appointments have sparked a debate on limited tenures. Besides, some argue that a longer working period for judges would also demotivate the talented aspirants looking to move higher and change the judiciary with their fresh take on things. Still, a retirement age of around 70 for judges is commonplace in Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Australia. No doubt a corrective has to be taken, but with the top court coming under the scanner all too often over the past year, there have to be adequate checks and balances.
Courtesy: The Pioneer
For the court processes to be more meaningful, effective and credible, the idea of setting up both regional and functional Benches must be explored
The Congress, in its manifesto for the 2019 general elections, proposed the setting up of a National Court of Appeals (NCA), which would act as an intermediary body between the Supreme Court and the various High Courts in the country to hear routine appeals in civil and criminal matters from the latter. The NCA, as proposed by the Congress, will sit in multiple Benches of three judges each in six locations. Further, the party also proposed to move a Constitutional amendment to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to only those cases that involve interpretation of the Constitution and adjudication of cases of national importance. This article aims to interpret the legal matrix surrounding the Congress’ proposal of the NCA.
The setting up of a National Court of Appeal will require an amendment to Article 130 of the Constitution of India, which would, in fact, be tantamount to tampering with the basic Constitutional framework of the Supreme Court. Such an amendment would also divest the apex court of its extraordinary powers with regard to hearing appeals. The same was also stated by the Ministry of Law and Justice while rejecting the aforementioned request way back in 2014. As such, the issue of whether or not such a court should be established shall remain outside the purview of this article. Nevertheless, the Congress’ manifesto has opened up the larger issue of whether or not decentralising the Supreme Court is Constitutionally feasible and practically desirable.
In 1950, when the Supreme Court came into being, it consisted of the Chief Justice and seven judges. It worked for four hours a day, 28 days a year. Today, with tremendous growth in population and increase in demand, the top court has a sanctioned strength of 31 judges but pendency of cases has increased from 690 in 1950 to a staggering 61,300 cases as of March 2015. This has made it one of the most overburdened Constitutional courts in the world.
This situation may be attributed in no small part to the Supreme Court itself as it deviated from its primary function of adjudicating cases of Constitutional significance and, thus, converted itself into a regular court of appeals. The apex court was never intended to be a regular court of appeal and the extraordinary jurisdiction for granting special leave was conferred upon it so that it could interfere whenever it felt that the law had not been enunciated properly by the High Courts or lower judiciary and where it was necessary to correct the position of the law.
This conversion had a cataclysmic impact on the justice delivery system, owing to excessive backlog of cases. Frequent adjournments due to the geographical concentration of the Supreme Court in the capital city has only added to the pre-existing backlog of cases.
Pendency apart, the Law Commission, in its 229th report, also pointed out the logistical difficulties poor litigants have to face while travelling all the way to Delhi to appear for their respective cases. Further, litigants regularly request their advocates in the High Courts to appear in the Supreme Court, resulting in multiplication of costs in terms of hotel and travel expenses. To quote the Law Commission’s report, “…huge amount is spent on travel; bringing one’s own lawyer, who has handled the matter in the High Court, adds to the cost; adjournment becomes prohibitive, costs get multiplied…”
Article 130 of the Constitution of India states, “The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint.”
A bare reading of the aforementioned article will make it clear that the Supreme Court can sit not only in Delhi but also in any other place. Moreover, this view was also endorsed by Justice PN Bhagwati in a 1986 judgement. The Law Commission itself had stated, “If Article 130 is liberally interpreted, no Constitutional amendment may be required for setting up Cassation Benches in four regions and a Constitution Bench at Delhi. Action by the Chief Justice of India with the President’s approval may be enough. It may also be noted that under Article 130, the Chief Justice of India acts as a persona designate and is not required to consult any other authority/person. Only presidential approval is necessary. However, in case this liberal interpretation of Article 130 is not feasible, suitable legislation/Constitutional amendment may be enacted to do the needful.”
Thus, the Constitutional scheme of things provides for the setting up of Benches on both a geographical and functional basis. Moreover, a literal interpretation of Article 130 makes it clear that no Constitutional amendment would be required in order to set up such Benches. As such, setting up regional benches of the Supreme Court, which may deal with appeals with a Constitutional Bench in Delhi, is the best way forward.
Many legal experts feel that the setting up of regional Benches will dilute the apex court’s Constitutional superiority. However, decentralisation — being both functional and structural in nature — with only one Bench in Delhi dealing with Constitutional matters must put to rest all such concerns.
Thus, the setting up of regional benches will in no way dilute the finality or superiority of the apex court’s decisions. The Supreme Court of India has been a robust institution, which remains unparalleled in the service that it has rendered to the nation. The founding fathers of the Constitution never envisaged the Supreme Court to be geographically concentrated in Delhi. With the rising number of cases and practical difficulties being faced by poor litigants, it is about time that the idea of setting up both regional and functional Benches be explored in right earnest.
(The writer is serving as law clerk-cum-research assistant at the Supreme Court of India)
Writer: Aditya Manubarwala
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Due process needs to be followed to expose the truth behind the allegations against the CJI, for every citizen’s sake. Social activist Swami Agnivesh summed up the controversy over sexual misconduct allegations against the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi with a rounded statement embodying what the judiciary, facing a crisis of confidence, should do. “The maturity, authenticity and stature of the Supreme Court will be tested on how this crisis is weathered and how the majesty of law is upheld without fear or favour,” he said. For there is a gathering cloud of judgements swirling around the case already, one that has to be dispelled convincingly. Is this another attack on an institution, as has been suggested by the CJI himself, to deactivate a position that is tasked with fair dissemination of justice on the eve of crucial rulings that can have a cascading consequence on polity, not too favourably may be for certain political parties? Is this a motivated attack, using the old trope of blackmail by a victimised woman, on a man who has been largely known for his personal decency for the most part of his judicial career and is looking to bow out with the same grace? Or is it comeuppance for moments that are unrecorded in the legal chambers? Is some vested interest taking advantage of the fact that there is no legal framework within the top court’s rulebook whereby a CJI could be investigated on allegations such as these, his removal being only possible through parliamentary impeachment? Finally, in the age of #MeToo, this charge by a junior staff against the topmost office-bearer at the workplace ought to be dealt with high standards of objectivity and due process so that working women demanding justifiable rights are not trivialised anymore or subjected to innuendos of “I told you so.” For the sake of all women out there, if the accuser is guilty of fabrication, coercion and mala fide intent, she should be booked, too. And for the highest court, which has been guaranteeing women’s rights, it becomes imperative its highest office-bearer be seen as acting justly in matters concerning women employees.
Gogoi has already been in the public eye for joining three of his colleagues in the collegium last year for questioning the process of case allocations by the office of the then CJI and the independence of the institution. He risked his elevation by taking a public stand on the internal workings of the court, something which many believe should not have played out in the public space. Which is why he cannot afford a similar public jury verdict on the propriety of handling another delicate manner. Already some experts are saying that the CJI might have just hastily launched his defence through a suo moto hearing. Assuming he is right, a knee-jerk reaction only raises more questions and doubts. In the absence of a credible mechanism, the woman had no option but to appeal to the Justices of the Supreme Court to create a Special Inquiry Committee comprising retired judges. Besides, the top court’s “In-House Procedure” lays out the process to deal with allegations of sexual harassment, instructing an inquiry committee to take cognisance of complaints and initiate proceedings only after giving notices to the respondent (the CJI in this case) and the complainant (the woman). However, this is yet to happen. Neither did the CJI’s special hearing in court include the complainant, though remarks were passed about her and her faulty legal record. So this imputation that the allegations were a proxy war against the judiciary would look one-sided without meaning to be so. In the end, the Supreme Court is the country’s most honourable institution, upholder of Constitutional morality and a protector of the citizen’s rights. And if it is indeed under attack, then its justices should set an example why one should never attempt to defile it. If not, then they need to restore faith in its infallibility in a manner that there is no room for doubt.
Writer: Pioneer
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Our parliamentary system is largely modelled on the Westminster order — relevant provisions of the Constitution being quite similar to those contained in the chapters on Federal and Provincial Legislatures in the Government of India Act, 1935. Sir Samuel Hoare, the then Secretary of State for India, had piloted this Bill in the House of Commons in 1935.
The institution of our Speaker is a takeoff from this model, which is inspired by the Speaker of House of Commons. Being the guardian and the custodian of the House, he/she occupies a very exalted position. It is well within his powers to guide the Parliament and give direction to our democracy. Elaborating on the persona of the Speaker, GV Mavalankar, the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha, had this to say, “Once a person is elected a Speaker, he is expected to be above parties and politics. In other words, he belongs to all the members and at the same time belongs to none. He holds the scales of justice evenly, irrespective of the party or person. As a human being, he has his human drawbacks and shortcomings, however, everybody knows that he will intentionally do no injustice or show partiality. Such a person is naturally held in respect by all.”
These high ideals set for a Speaker have mostly been met but as we are all aware, the real test of the mettle only comes when one is faced with a challenge. Difficult decisions are never easy to make and these days it appears that quite often one has taken the easy way out, sometimes even inconsistent with the dignity of the high office. Such a perception will not only lower respect for the individual, but also question for all time his even one transgression of ethics and norms.
The situation has become more acute ever since the powers of adjudication were assigned to the Speaker under the Anti-Defection Law. While taking decisions under this law many a time, they may have served the party well, but in the process, they have come out of such episodes ‘bruised’ and may be sometimes even ‘tainted’.
But what makes the Anti-Defection Law so complicated for the Speaker needs a closer look. A path-breaking feature of this Act was that for the first time, a political person, the Speaker or the Chairman of the House, was made to adjudicate and administer this Act. Hitherto, the role of the Speaker was limited to regulating and adjudicating on Parliamentary proceedings, which are insulated by Articles 122 and 212 of the Constitution. In respect of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, these articles restrict the role of the courts from judging the validity of the proceedings on grounds of alleged irregularity of procedures.
However, after the Supreme Court’s judgement in Prakash Singh Badal’s case, proceedings under the Anti-Defection Law were made justiciable. While supporting the new role of the Speaker, the apex court in the Kihota Hollohon case also observed that it was the appropriate forum under the Anti-Defection Law and further added, “Accordingly, we hold that the vesting of adjudicatory functions in the Speakers/Chairmen would not by itself vitiate the provision on the ground of likelihood of political bias is unsound and is rejected. The Speaker/Chairmen hold a pivotal position in the scheme of Parliamentary democracy and (are) guardians of the rights and privileges of the House. They are expected to and take far reaching decisions in the functioning of Parliamentary democracy. Vestiture of power to adjudicate questions under the Tenth Schedule in such constitutional functionaries should not be considered exceptionable.”
On the other hand, the minority view in this case thought that assigning powers of adjudication to the Speaker was against the basic structure doctrine and the separation of powers between the Judiciary, Legislature and the Executive. Further, it was contemplated that adjudication of such disputes should be by an independent authority outside the House, namely President/Governor in accordance with the opinion of the Election Commission, all of them being high Constitutional functionaries.
Chief Justice MN Venkatachaliah had upheld the cause of the Speaker in his majority judgement in this case, while a few years later, as the Head of the Commission to review the working of the Constitution, he supported the Election Commission route for the Xth Schedule (Anti Defection Law), which, however, remained unaccepted.
Today, the ground situation is such that till the time the actual proceedings under the Xth Schedule are not initiated, the matter of defection virtually remains a function of Articles 212 and 122, where the courts have virtually no jurisdiction. The moment the proceedings under the Schedule are taken up, the role of the Speaker changes to that of an adjudicator and can be taken cognizance of by the appropriate courts. The result is that in certain cases, proceedings have got inordinately delayed only to circumvent the judicial process.
There have been several instances where the role of the Speaker has come under scrutiny. Among the recent ones are the continuing imbroglio in Tamil Nadu from 2017 onwards and the cases of Andhra and Telangana where proceedings against the defectors had remained pending for a very long time. While Andhra Pradesh has now gone to the polls, a new Telangana Assembly was constituted in December last year, in a way, making the proceedings against the defectors virtually in fructuous. In fact, this trend had begun in Uttar Pradesh more than a decade ago, where sufficient breathing time had been given to the Government by delaying proceedings under the Anti-Defection Law. The indictment of the Karnataka Speaker by the Supreme Court is already well-known.
Instead of assigning the proceedings to an institution other than the Speaker, such aberrations can be easily addressed by amending the law. Besides covering defections, these could also include other variants mentioned in the Act, for instance, expulsions, voluntarily giving up membership and even splits and mergers. First, by fixing a time limit, within which such proceedings have to be mandatorily disposed of by the Speaker, would be a major step forward. Second, an amendment needs to be brought in to provide for all types of defectors, whether singly or in groups, to resign from their seats and contest fresh elections. They also need to be debarred from holding any public office of a Minister or any other office of profit, till their fresh election. Also, as recommended by the National Commission to review the working of the Constitution, the vote cast by a defector to topple a Government or to repose confidence in a new dispensation may be treated as invalid.
In order to save the high office of the Speaker from any embarrassment, there used to be a convention in the House of Commons where in the subsequent elections to the Parliament, no party fielded a candidate against him/her. Also, having resigned from the parent party, he/she would contest only as a Speaker. In case he/she was not re-contesting, usually, he/she would be elevated to the House of Lords. Some of these conventions have since been diluted but in our context need to be studied for strengthening the office of the Speaker and ensuring his/her neutrality.
Though the Anti-Defection Law was enacted to curb defections, they have continued. It would now be upon the members of the 17th Lok Sabha, which will get constituted by the end of next month, to review and effect changes in the law in a manner that will go a long way in strengthening our Parliamentary democracy.
(The writer is a former Governor of Meghalaya and Uttarakhand and a former Commissioner of Police, Delhi)
Writer: KK Paul
Courtesy: The Pioneer
With increasing dominance of Artificial Intelligence in many fields, it has now become a boon for law, says Dr Purvi Pokhariyal
There is no doubt that Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a dominant technology in our daily lives. Whether you are doing a Google search on your smartphone, ordering your Alexa device to play songs, interacting with humanoid customer executives in a bank or responding via smart replies in Gmail, all of these are AI. Now, while AI as technology has immense benefits, the fact that it is taking over human jobs can’t be ignored.
Being in a knowledge-driven sector, law firms repeatedly produce massive amounts of data. It is a mammoth task to review endless documents, summarise notes, find relevant law codes and case studies and classify/sort information manually. However, for decades, the law professionals have relied on their expertise, know-how, logic, reasoning, diligence, judgement and integrity to execute these tasks and perform their jobs. Call them a professional hazard or intelligence gathering tools; research, studies and document reviews are integral to the law industry.
The law professionals have been earning handsomely for doing this kind of manual work. Having said that, can we deny that these tasks are administrative in nature and consume too many man-hours? If AI-driven software or robots can take over these repetitive tasks and spare more time for humans to focus on more strategic jobs, there is no much-perceived harm.
In fact, several law firms have started deploying AI to do certain jobs. For instance —Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas was the first Indian law firm to use AI-software to identify, analyse and extract clauses and other information from contracts and other types of legal documents.
WongPartnership became the first Singapore law firm to actively engage AI to ‘enhance its lawyers’ ability to conduct due diligence and other contract review processes more effectively and efficiently’ in merger and acquisition transactions.
Law functions that AI can automate: AI can offer automation opportunities in the following legal functions:
Document research, review and drafting
Review and maintain contracts
Structure huge amounts of data
Improve the accuracy of findings
Make initial recommendations on legal outcomes
Conduct due diligence
Provide data points from past cases through analytics
Filing patents
Now the question arises that if AI can do these jobs, then would the law be a lucrative career in future? The answer is yes. Like in any other industry, the role of AI in the legal sector is to make repetitive processes faster and more efficient. This will help the law professionals to relieve themselves from the routine jobs of paperwork, timesheets and interactions to reduce their billable time, pass on the cost savings to the clients and provide better services. They will be able to focus more time on more important tasks such as negotiating deals, framing law policies, actively participating in regulatory meetings, advising clients and making court appearances.
The law professionals have to remember the fact that human brains are more intelligent than any machine. Humans have thinking and logical reasoning ability that machines do not have yet. So, law professionals will still be in demand, albeit for the roles which call for human interaction/appearances, cognitive ability, instincts and decision-making.
Moreover, AI can’t replace the trust factor and relationship building with clients. As humans, we still tend to trust other humans than machines to converse. The law professionals may lose clerical jobs to AI, but when it comes to applying brains and collaborating with people, they will have a definite edge over technology.
AI in the legal industry is still in the nascent stage. AI technology is inaccessible and expensive at present. Moreover, the laws regarding the acceptability of AI in the legal sector are ambiguous and rather non-existent. It will take several years for AI to show its full impact and justify its usage in the replacement of certain legal services. Going forward, AI is more likely to act as virtual assistants to law professionals. As far as the experience and judgement are concerned, no legal technology can beat the law professionals.
The writer is Director and Dean, Institute of Law, Nirma University
Writer: The Pioneer
Courtesy: Dr Purvi Pokhariyal
The SC order on mediation has allowed Modi some reprieve to act decisively on the temple issue
The Supreme Court has clearly neutralised the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, given its gravitas in our body politics and hold on our national consciousness, and dissociated it from the considerations of electoral politics. In that sense, yes it is healing. It has ordered mediation in the case by a three-member panel including spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Justice (Retd) FM Kalifulla and senior advocate Sriram Panchu in a time-bound manner, all of whom have a proven track record in dispute resolution through consensus. Of course, the mediation process, to be done in eight weeks, is no easy project considering that there have been at least three reconciliatory attempts in the past that haven’t got any of the three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla — closer to resolution. Even now, reports suggest that both sides are adamant about their stated positions. For both Muslims and Hindus, compromise equals climbdown when it comes to the legitimacy of the mosque and the temple. But as the court said, the past cannot be undone and the only option was to take things forward hereon.
The Hindu right-wing, which has based its claim to political legacy on the temple, cannot afford to water down Ayodhya. And in times of polarisation, even the BJP has but to address its core constituency. For it has derived only incremental advantages by converting what was once an upper caste concern to a heartland plank. Though the rath yatra by veteran BJP leader LK Advani laid the foundation of the movement, it was not until the demolition of the mosque that the construction of the Ram temple wrested the pan-India narrative. So, BJP will never be able to settle for half measures on the mandir issue though the traction has been diminishing over the years, compelling even RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat to declare that the subject should be taken up after the general elections. The temple issue even failed to create a ripple effect in last year’s bypolls and Assembly elections in the heartland states, considering its supporters were mostly concentrated there. Truth be told, the Pulwama terror attacks and the Balakot airstrikes have given a nationalist and pan-India surge that has shored up Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ratings and the party can now afford to delay its Ayodhya strategy instead of giving into the pressure of issuing an ordinance from ideologues of the Sangh Parivar. Although Modi has clarified that any discussion on Ayodhya would be considered only after the judicial process is over, it is true that even two months ago, he had been expected to take an imponderable step to ensure temple construction, the cascading effect of which would have posed a double-edged threat to his electoral prospects and governance. So the top court’s offer of mediation, with a friendly spiritual guru on the panel, has spared Modi and given him the time and reprieve to push this issue on the backburner. Post-elections, it will be another matter.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
International Women’s Day is a good occasion to celebrate the spunk, grit and bravery of marginalised women, who spoke up for their rights passing all hurdles
Courage comes in different forms. A few weeks ago, it came in the form of 5,000 women, young and old, who marched 10,000 kilometres across the country over 65 days with one common aim. These survivors of sexual violence wanted to show that they were no longer willing to be shamed into silence. It was also to show that the fear of muscle and money power would no longer break their determination to fight for justice and dignity.
During this journey, the ‘Dignity March’ — the first of its kind in India — passed through 200 districts in 24 States. In each of these districts, public meetings, big and small, were held to reach out to other survivors of rape and their families, lawyers, law enforcement officers, medical practitioners and civil society groups working for women’s empowerment. Here, as deeply poignant stories were shared, survivors drew courage from each other and pledged to continue their struggle against injustice.
It didn’t matter whether the dialects they spoke were different. Neither did age differences between them create any impediments. So whether they belonged to Rajasthan, West Bengal, Goa, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh or Kerala, the women overcame barriers of language, region and religion to speak up against the culture of victim-shaming and support each other.
This was what the Rashtriya Garima Abhiyan (RGA) wanted. Organised by RGA, a coalition of civil society organisations working against gender violence, the march gave the survivors a platform to make their voices heard. “Despite facing sexual violence, most women did not report it”, according to Ashif Shaikh, convenor, RGA. One of the main reasons for this under-reporting was that women were made to feel guilty for the violence perpetrated against them. “The ‘Dignity March’ gave the women a chance to break this culture of silence,” said Shaikh.
The women are not only speaking out but are also daring to take on their perpetrators, something that takes immense courage. They do realise that by coming out, the risk of reprisal has increased, considering they belong to marginalised communities and lack economic and social power to combat their influential perpetrators. Yet, they have not shied away from being seen and heard. This makes their march against sexual violence even more admirable and inspirational.
Their stories have re-focussed attention on impunity in which perpetrators of crimes against women roam free. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data revealed that while 106 rapes were reported every day in 2016, conviction rate was just 18.9 per cent. In fact, there has been a steady rise in crimes against women. Cases of rape increased from 34,651 in 2015 to 38,947 in 2016.
With nearly 11.4 per cent of total crimes against women in India being committed in Uttar Pradesh, the State ranks a dubious first in the national list of crimes against women (2014 NCRB). In fact, in 2013-14, Uttar Pradesh, which has 16.8 per cent share of the country’s women population, saw an increase of 73 per cent over the previous year in cases of assault with intent to outrage her modesty.
But here, too, courage has come in the form of rural women collectives which are standing up against violence. In villages of Deoria district in Gorakhpur division, women collectives have developed their own helpline to protect themselves and others from sexual violence. Used by the members of the collectives in times of distress, this innovative helpline has become lifeline for the 240 self-help groups (SHGs) in the district. Since each SHG has a membership of 10-15 marginalised women, more than 2,400 women are connected in times of need. It is one of those groups that set up a chain of support the moment a woman dials the helpline.
The idea of the helpline came only after women formed SHDs with help from the Rajiv Gandhi Mahila Vikas Pariyojana (RGMVP), a not-for-profit organisation working for women’s empowerment in Uttar Pradesh. After women understood the importance of collective strength, they gained the confidence to tackle sensitive cases of sexual harassment and domestic violence. The decision to create a helpline came up during one such meeting when they discussed how members could access help in an organised manner.
Now, they all know that instead of becoming distressed or frightened, they can get the support of the collective with just one phone call. “Just this knowledge gives them the confidence to fight for their rights”, said Rita Devi, block president of 240 SHGs.
This self-belief has led them to take on the police when they refuse to register their complaints in their bid for justice. They have also come together to bring perpetrators to book even if they belonged to the upper castes. Just how such a helpline has given courage to the women was seen when an attempt to assault a SHG member was made recently. Over 100 members rushed to the village after hearing about the incident through the helpline and tracked down the culprit. They sat in front of the house of the perpetrator (who belonged to an upper caste) and refused to move even though they were threatened. After several hours, when the police realised they would not be able to move the women unless they took action, the perpetrator was nabbed.
Courage has also come in the way of women changing traditional customs like gudiya peetna or doll beating. This age-old custom has been an integral part of Nag Panchami, a popular festival in Uttar Pradesh. It is popular in eastern Uttar Pradesh, particularly in Sitapur district. Here, young men between 18 and 25 years of age pound the dolls with decorated sticks, unmindful of the culture of violence it was perpetuating among young boys and men.
The first to oppose this custom was Mahila Samakhya, an autonomous unit of the Government’s Ministry of Women and Child. It demanded an end to this tradition that devalued girls. By allowing them to be beaten, the tradition gave boys and men sanction to use violence against women under the garb of religion and custom, contended Mahila Samakhya. It asked for gudiya jhulana or placing the dolls on decorated swings and rocked with respect at such ceremonies. Some years ago, Mahila Samakhya organised a special programme to condemn this tradition at the Naimisharanya pilgrimage site in Sitapur where this tradition was celebrated with great fanfare.
Expectedly, this met with opposition. So, public meetings were held to raise awareness and discussions, questioning this custom, began at meetings organised by SHGs. Why are only female dolls beaten? Why are guddas or male dolls not beaten? When no logical explanation could be found, a collective decision was taken by the SHGs to stop following the doll-beating tradition. Instead they started placing the doll on a swing and rocking it. Initially, many of them had to face taunts and even abuses. But when the women did not change their decision, many others followed their example.
Today, on International Day for Women, the courage of these marginalised women needs to be celebrated more than ever. They don’t have the backing of the community and in many cases, even their families abandon them. These women from the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) have had to deal with the double-whammy of caste oppression and gender discrimination. Data shows that the percentage of women (age 15-49), who have experienced physical violence since age 15, is greater among SC and ST women (35.7 per cent for SC women and 31 per cent for ST women) as compared to that faced by other women. Justice is often delayed with their cases hanging in court. NCRB data shows that almost 90 per cent of the cases filed under the SC/ST Act remain pending at the end of every year. It takes an average of five years for a trial to be completed with a majority of them ending in acquittals.
Even then, women are no longer willing to go quietly into the night. They have shown spunk, grit and courage to speak up. They deserve respect, dignity and most of all, justice.
(The writer is a senior journalist)
Writer: Swapna Majumdar
Courtesy: The Pioneer
anking second in the world on the list of firearms owned by civilians – 71.1 million arms out of which 61 million are unregistered and unlicensed – India has an undercurrent that goes deeper than most presume. SANGEETA YADAV and SHEKHAR SINGH dig deep into the world of illegal gun factories and their impact on society.
There are more than one billion firearms in the world, out of which 857 million (85 per cent) are in civilian hands, 133 million (13 per cent) in military arsenals and 23 million (two per cent) owned by law enforcement agencies, according to a report published by the Small Arms Survey in June 2018, written by Aaron Karp, senior lecturer at Old Dominion University, Virginia, US.
What is alarming is that India ranks second with 71.1 million arms after the US with an estimated 394 million. The global stockpile has increased over the past decade, largely due to civilian holdings, which grew from 650 million in 2006 to 857 million in 2017.
“India has a lot of firearms, but from global perspective, it ranks at mid level in terms of rate of ownership. Unlike the gun culture in the US, which gives its citizen the right to own firearms, India, after independence, has been more successful in controlling the ownership of firearms, which has worked well for the country. The biggest problem is the illegal firearms,” Karp says.
The latest National Crime Record Bureau’s report highlights that around 3,775 people were murdered in India by firearms out of which 3,453 deaths were due to unlicensed firearms and only 322 died from legally owned, registered arms. A total of 1,06,900 pieces of ammunition and 56,516 firearms were seized across the country that year, out of which only 37,116 arms were unlicensed/improvised/crude and country-made.
Only 53,929 cases were registered under the Arm Act, 1959, concentrated in northern States. Uttar Pradesh has the maximum number with 27,189 arms cases followed by Madhya Pradesh with 8,019 and Rajasthan 5,757 arms cases. These arms include weapons AK 47/56 rifles, pistols, carbine, revolver, guns and rifles.
Whether bought legally or illegally, licensed or unlicensed, for safety, sports or wrong reasons, with an increasing number of people registering for guns and also taking the illegal route to own a katta, the rising gun culture in India is having a huge fallout.
“When you own a gun, you are showing the world that you are more powerful than others. In Rajputs, it is a status symbol — if you own a gun, you are complete. But this status and power is misused. When you carry a gun, you feel you are indestructible and invincible. It is a way to keep your shortcomings hidden. Gun means God, you take the life of another person in your hand, bring him to his knees, and convinces them to do anything. It is more powerful than money,” says Anuja Trehan Kapur, criminal psychologist and advocate who owns a .37 Caliber Nirbheek, a light-weight weapon designed for women.
Dr Ranjana Kumari, director of Centre for Social Research, agrees. More than protection, owning a gun is a status symbol in India, she feels. “Gun symbolises power which is misused. People get it in the name of protection but the fact is, very few people carry it with themselves all the time for their safety. A lot of people from the minority and middle class groups are trying to get the gun legally or illegally and the moment you start arming people, you are increasing the chances of them committing a crime. Crime has risen due to the illegal production, ownership and distribution of weapons. This has also led to the emergence of criminal gangs. The gun lobby is a huge economic stint in the system and it should be nabbed and controlled on time,” Kumar explains.
Just like crime evolves, the gun culture has evolved too. The history of India’s gun culture dates back to the British era when many Government-owned gun factories were operated in Bihar’s Munger and Madhya Pradesh’s (MP) Khargone and Dhar. These gun manufacturers supply the arms and ammunition to the armed forces during the First World War. The Indian Government after Independence granted licenses to 36 small-scale industries to produce firearms. When the India-China war broke out in 1962, the Munger Gun Factory supplied samples of 410 bore Muscat to the Defence Ministry.
After the war got over, these factories were shut down four decades ago, leaving hundreds of workers unemployed who took the illegal route to manufacture arms as they knew no other work. To earn a living, they started an illegal business by making country made pistols — kattas or tamanchas.
Cut to 2019, the art of arms manufacturing has been not only preserved by this class of workers but also carried forwards by their present generation. They can now even make duplicate copies of modern rifles like AK-47, you name it and they can make it for you.
These illegal arms manufacturers have built their factories either in forest area or residential complexes where it is difficult to locate such activity. In Ardhana Village near Meerut, UP and Mewat, Haryana, there are many illegal arms manufacturing units.
After frequent raids of illegal firearms rackets operated inter-State in these areas, a senior Delhi Police officer revealed that many illegal manufacturing units have hired skilled labourers from Munger to make illegal weapons. They would procure the raw material from Munger and assemble the country made weapons like single shot firearms, sixers, pistols, single barrel gun, double barrel gun, semi-automatic rifles resembling INSAS and AK-47. You name it and the manufacturers will make it for you whichever type of firearm you want.
From goons, Maoists, terrorists to petty thieves, snatchers and criminals, these illegal arms are much in demand and are known for its quality of craft. The price of these weapons varies according to their make, outer look and raw material used. The country made single-shot pistol, also known as katta, can be procured in between Rs 3,000 to Rs 7,000 depending upon the make and material (rod/barrel) used. While a pistol or a revolver costs in between Rs 15,000 to Rs 25,000.
Other weapons like semi-automatic rifles including the AK series can cost anything in between Rs 30,000 to Rs 50,000. People would demand illegal arms which continue to be available for sale in bulk at much cheaper prices in Delhi-NCR, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, UP and Nepal as well.
The Capital has become a transit hub for arms smuggling and criminals using them. The areas in Delhi, where the arms have majorly been supplied, are Alipur, Bawana, GT Karnal Road, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, Najafgarh, Jaitpur, Badarpur, Gazipur, Anand Vihar, Vivek Vihar, Seemapuri, Mangolpuri, Madangir, Nand Nagri and Jafrabad.
The sale of illegal weapon is going on blatantly as arms peddlers smuggle guns and ammunition in scooters and bikes making it difficult for the Delhi police to nab the culprits and burst the racket.
The Delhi Police’s Annual report for 2018 highlights that the problem of illicit firearms and their use is becoming worse with each passing year. The number of criminals arrested under Arms Act saw an increase of 66.61 per cent, with 1901 cases in 2018 as compared to 1141 in 2017, and 745 cases in 2016. The number of cases registered with illegal firearms has seen a 60.92 per cent rise with 1540 cases in 2018, as compared to 957 cases in 2017, and 658 cases in 2016. The number of recovery of illegal firearms in Delhi has increased to 37.94 per cent with 1905 cases in 2018 as compared to 1381 cases in 2017 and 902 cases in 2016.
With such a large number of seizures of illegal arm and ammunition, it is not only helping the State police to bring down the gun violence and insurgency but also nab smuggling of arms across India.
Be it stringent licensing norms which has made the process difficult and time consuming or petty criminals and those seeking revenge, the illegal arms are in huge demand because of these two reasons.
The license of the gun and ammunition comes with greater accountability, liability and responsibility. Thus the officials not only check your background for previous criminal record and cases but also your psychological traits.
“It is very important that the gun goes to the right person who is mentally trained and has a strong personality. A gun can only be taken it in your own hands when you have your hands are made for that and your personality and mind is well trained. From the psychological point of view, owning a gun gives you a kick and you find yourself above average. A weak personality who believes in doing good to others will not carry or own a gun. They will even surrender the gun that they have in the family or fear that they might kill themselves out of depression or kill the family members or others for revenge. A person, who can take risks and consider themselves above all will opt for owning a gun,” Kapur says.
Even those who have traits of rage, anxiety, depression or a narcissist would be risk factor. “We all have a bit of narcissist and inferiority complex that comes with emotional instability, paranoia bordering on predatory. It is difficult to assess the psyche of a person in a few rounds of interview and authorise them with the gun license. People also bribe and use the power of politician and others easy way out. But for the common man, the important thing is to build a strong personality. Being a woman, I have traits of emotional instability, but I had made my personality so strong that I got my gun license in just two hours. They kept on testing me and tried to create an ambush during my interview but I kept a calm profile,” Kapur tells you.
It is easier for women to get license which the men in the family take advantage of. “Women are also using guns but mostly people take licensed under the name of their wife or girlfriend because women get license easily — for self defence. There was an incident that took place in Kanpur where women, who were housewives and didn’t even know how to speak properly, had applied for a gun license,” Kapur shares.
The psychology of men getting a gun will be different from the psychology of women. “With women, gun is connected with safety but for men, it is connected with violence. A man’s identity lies with the gun, take that away, their power to extract and extort, and commit crime goes away as well. Women are victims more than the offenders. There are exceptions like Indrani Mukherjee. But only two per cent of women would be owning a gun,” Kumari says.
Kapur points out that the idea of owning a gun comes from two factors — genetic and environmental influence. “Some are genetically driven and passed on to the child by their fathers with the wrong role-model. Some are born in violent and criminal environment. When it comes to gun culture, there exists male patriarchy as boys from their childhood days are gifted gun toy to play with, which is later replaced by the violent mobile games and then influenced by films and the environment around them. The urge to see and hold a real gun arises and they either get it legally or illegally,” Kapur points out.
Karp points out that in India, due to poverty and legal restrictions, most civilian guns are katta which are not registered. “It is not uncommon that members of families don’t even know that there is a gun at home, they would not know how many of them are lying in the store or cupboard. Another part of the problem is older and antique weapons, sometimes from World War Two or earlier, and often are not registered,” Karp says.
What can really help in this situation is door-to-door polling. Karp notes that public polling on sensitive subjects like guns, asking people how many arms they have, is neither easy or perfect.
“But experience in Africa, Europe and Latin America shows that polling is the best way to figure how many guns are out there, including unregistered guns,” he says.
Seeing the increasing cases of arms smuggling, the Ministry of Home Affairs has taken a big step to include the names of all arms licence holders— new or old — in the national database and issue the owners a unique identification number (UIN) to keep a track of authorised private gun holders, many of whom are often found involved in gun violence.
With effect from April 1, 2019, any arms license without UIN shall be considered invalid. The decision has been taken by exercising powers under Section 44 of the Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959) by amending the Arms Rules, 2016. These rules will be called the Arms (Second Amendment) Rules, 2018 which will make more difficult for the citizens to own a gun. The amendments will decline arms license to persons whose antecedents are not bona fide.
Under the new rules, prospective gun owners will have to show they have been trained, only carry firearms in holders and secure them in a “knocked down” condition in gun lockers at home. Even air guns will require an arms license.
Moreover, existing licensee having multiple licences shall have to file an application for the grant of a single license in respect of all firearms held by him or her under his or her UIN to the concerned licensing authority. For women’s safety, there are licensed electronic disabling devices like taser guns and lighter gun as well.
The police need to do more than just law enforcement, Karp says. “One of the most effective tools is a firearms amnesty, where people, without the fear of prosecution for holding an illegal gun, can come forward and either surrender their guns and ammunition or get them legally registered. Simply shifting firearms from the illegal pool legalised ownership will help greatly to reduce gun violence,” Karp advises.
illegal arms haul
October 10, 2018
The Special Cell of Delhi Police busted an inter-State gang running a gun factory in Delhi. In simultaneous raids carried out in Delhi and Meerut by the Special Cell sleuths, five persons were arrested and an illegal factory of sophisticated country-made guns was busted. It led to the recovery of 85 semi-automatic pistols, 50 live cartridges, 40 magazines and several unfinished/semi-furnished firearms in the raids.
Two gun peddlers were apprehended by a team of the Special Cell when they were on way to Haryana from Delhi for selling pistols. During the search of their vehicle 11 pistols were recovered from beneath the driver’s seat, while 52 pistols were recovered from a secret cavity that was created in boot of the car by covering the space for stepney.
December 3, 2018
The Delhi Police busted an illegal arms manufacturing factory in Karawal Nagar area in North-east Delhi and arrested a 41-year-old gun-runner who was involved in manufacturing and supply of country made arms to criminals in Delhi and its peripheral areas. The accused, Iqbal, had setup an illegal arms manufacturing unit in his house from where the police has recovered arms manufacturing material, two semi-automatic pistols, three country made pistols along with 16 live cartridges and six spare magazines from his premises.
During interrogation, the accused revealed that his father Bundu Khan was manufacturing illegal arms at his house and he learnt the technique from him. He started repairing the arms of the criminals and gradually started manufacturing the country made pistols. Iqbal has supplied more than 25 carbines, 50 semi automatic pistols and more than 100 country made pistols to various criminals in Delhi and UP.
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Writer: SANGEETA YADAV/SHEKHAR SINGH
Let us get one thing straight, even a stand-alone electronic machine, no matter how simple, can be manipulated. If you have the knowledge, expertise and time, you can hack your kitchen appliances like a toaster or blender. If you have a lot of time and an unlimited budget, you might even be able to do so over the air, but the sheer expense and effort required to do that makes it unviable. The reason we are talking about basic kitchen appliances is that they are as simple as an Indian electronic voting machine (EVM). A microwave or advanced food processor is not let alone anything that is connected to the internet of things. If the question is whether an EVM can potentially be hacked, it might be possible. But can it happen in reality is a different question altogether and the accusations being thrown by random, untrustworthy people have to be dismissed with a degree of condescension.
A basic degree of understanding the way an Indian election is conducted needs to be understood. If you have ever voted in an election, you would have seen the huge number of voting agents of every colour at every contested seat. Most Indian voters are smart enough to look and register who they have voted for. If they notice something grossly out of line, they would immediately find the booth agent for their party of choice and the complaint is forwarded with alacrity. In fact, the biggest risk in Indian elections has always been and will continue to be human intervention. Fake votes are cast in the name of others thanks to corrupt electoral agents and by musclemen. This still happens with alarming regularity in some rural areas and where single political forces dominate. That said, the rise of electronic and online media, which brings such instances to light rapidly in most cases, has managed to reduce the problem. In talking about EVMs being the problem, some folks would rather that you focus on an issue that does not exist and make excuses for their electoral failures. It is also an insidious plot to undermine democracy by some politicians who are out of power and we must see through that.
That said, the Election Commission of India, in addition to denying these allegations, must make a strong effort to show that their voting machines are secure. At the same time they should work overtime to ensure that the machines are securely stored and accounted for. Stories emerged during recent polls across India that EVMs were found in strange places. Again the human element comes into play just like it does in paper ballots. To those who doubt the veracity of the elections in India, including some journalists, we would urge them to learn a bit more. India cannot bear the cost and the time of conducting paper ballot elections, and hopefully the latest issue by some nobody trying to position himself as the Edward Snowden of India should be dismissed. After all, Snowden and Julian Assange have emerged as Russian agents out to undermine American democracy. So we should treat this latest crackpot with the same contempt.
Writer and Courtesy: The Pioneer
A few decades ago, dance bars and cabarets were common across many metropolitan areas of India but they came to define Mumbai nightlife and were made even more glamorous by Bollywood. They then mutated to becoming a conduit into the underworld; dance bars functioned not just as places where one could have a good time but also as barely disguised brothels where illicit alcohol and drugs flowed. And with the police turning a blind eye to what was going on, thanks to payments in cash or kind, Mumbai nightlife remained the most vibrant across India. Many of the dancers believed that dancing at one of these bars would be their route to fame and fortune, if not as a Bollywood starlet then as a gangster’s moll.
With the emergence of politicians going after the temperance vote of women, these dance bars became an easy target back in 2005. Even after the Supreme Court itself ruled in 2013 that dance bars could be allowed, the state fought back both with new legislation and morality-crusading policemen. In fact, the Supreme Court came down heavily on moral policing, saying in its judgement that “a practice which may not be immoral by societal standards cannot be thrust upon the society as immoral by the State with its own notion of morality and thereby exercise social control.” For this, the bench headed by Justice AK Sikri must be commended. But the judgement also left a leeway for the State to decide what is obscene, and that opens another grey area which politicians are sure to take advantage of. It is not as if dance bars completely died out after the ban. In Mumbai, there are some ‘Orchestra Bars’ that, for lack of a nicer term, function as places where prostitution is rampant. Also while the Supreme Court has said that the Maharashtra Government should issue licences, the State can easily drag its feet on this front. A new sort of morality has emerged across India that perversely sees these dance bars as dens of vice while refusing to admit that prostitution and drug usage are shooting through the roof in the country. Dance bars have moved on, any visitor to Dubai can find several Bombay-style dance bars functioning with impunity in that country, although they are more controlled. Mumbai has not quite been the same as Bombay was in the 1970s; it is a different city in all aspects now. But Mumbaikars should have an equal right to have some fun.
Writer and Courtesy: The Pioneer
While the freedom of speech and expression gives all citizens the right to criticise courts and judges, it does not encourage contempt of the same.
Last month, the Supreme Court set aside a contempt order, which was passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court almost half a year ago, sentencing a lawyer to one-month imprisonment for his contemptuous act of unfairly criticising a High Court judge on Facebook.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had initiated a suo motu contempt case against advocate Maneesh Vashistha for his post on Facebook, where he stated that a judgment passed by one of the judges of the High Court was not a speaking order and that a better decision could have been written by a magistrate.
Further, he complained that the judge had not uploaded the order even a week after its pronouncement and that this must have happened because he might not have understood what was to be written therein.
The setting aside of the High Court’s order by the apex court raises an interesting question: Where do we draw the line between free speech — criticism and talks that question the authority of the court — and contempt?
To understand the above-mentioned question, let us take a look into the very rationale behind the existence of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereafter referred to as the Act 1971). Why does the judiciary, which is the protector of freedom of speech and expression, create an exception for its own criticism?
As it turns out, the judiciary allows for a legitimate criticism of the institution but an unfair comment that unduly lowers or scandalises the authority of the court is a strict no-no. The reason for the same, as has been reiterated in a number of judgements, is to safeguard public interest that would have otherwise been adversely affected by such a comment.
Not only would such a comment diminish the authority of the court but would also erode public confidence in the institution of justice. Apart from the truth, which is a defence that has been inserted after an amendment to the Act 1971 in 2006, the foremost shield is the right to genuine criticism.
It has been time and again held by the Supreme Court that the right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution includes the right to fair criticism, and the judiciary, like any other organ or institution of the state, does not enjoy immunity from being fairly criticised in the course of its functioning. This freedom to criticise the judiciary includes the right to criticise the judgements of the courts.
Usually, the test employed by the court for contempt proceedings relates to the erosion of public confidence. Though wordings of the test would seemingly make it appear as fairly a simple one, practically speaking, its application is very complicated.
What are the criteria to decide whether a comment denigrates public confidence in the judiciary? Even this question is not so pressing. The real problem arises when a distinction has to be made between a personal attack on a judge in his/her individual capacity — which might fall under the category of defamation — and one that is made on the office of the judge, which tends to interfere with the course of justice and is hence a wrong done to the public.
While initially, the courts held both the aforementioned cases in two different watertight compartments, with time, the distinction became blurred. In the case, DC Saxena vs Chief Justice of India, the top court had held that a defamatory statement against a judge would constitute contempt when the comment is of such a gravity that erodes public confidence in the system.
This test is one that has been formulated on baseless grounds. It is but natural that a statement that tends to raise serious allegations against any judge (even in his/her own individual capacity), can logically be extended as an attack on the judicial institution.
Freedom of speech and expression is an essential right that the makers of the Constitution gifted to the citizens of this country so as to protect the very institution of democracy. Across the globe, the right to free speech is seen as something that is sacrosanct for the effective functioning of a healthy democracy. It is only when a person is provided with a platform to express himself that truth emerges.
This is not to suggest that any imputation, that is not reasonably justifiable or is not rational or sober and is made unfairly, should not be punished. Checks and balances must exist in a way that our pristine institutions of justice are not polluted by those who do not want our democracy to function properly.
Perhaps this can be best explained through a quote by the Supreme Court in the contempt case against Arundhati Roy, which it borrowed from the US Supreme Court judge, Justice Frankfurter in the Pennekamp vs Florida case: “If men, including judges and journalists, were angels, there would be no problems of contempt of court.
Angelic judges would be undisturbed by extraneous influences and angelic journalists would not seek to influence them. The power to punish for contempt, as a means of safeguarding judges in deciding on behalf of the community as impartially as is given to a lot of men to decide, is not a privilege accorded to judges. The power to punish for contempt of court is a safeguard not for judges as persons but for the function which they exercise.”
At present, the judiciary is the only wing of the Government that has not received flak of the people for being an ineffective and corrupt organ of the state. Even today, the phrase: “I will see you in court” not only portrays the intention of the person to fight for his/her cause but also exhibits the confidence reposed by the people of this country in the judiciary as the ultimate place where one can find justice.
In the light of this perception, judges of various courts must be more open and friendly to criticism. Even if an unscrupulous person tries to launch an attack on a judge, he/she should first distinguish whether the criticism is personal or professional. If the latter seems to be more probable, then surely a case of contempt should be instituted. The court in such a situation has to be very mindful because invoking contempt jurisdiction at the drop of a hat will in turn lower respect for the judiciary in the eyes of the people and, therefore, defeat the very purpose for which the Act was established.
Writer: Raghav Pandey/Neelabh Bist
Courtesy: The Pioneer
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month