New Delhi, Feb. 01, 2020: The former Supreme Court judge AK Sikri on Saturday said that “India is the only country where judges appoint judges - ”that the Collegium Judges appointed judges based on its “impression” about candidates and therefore the judicial appointments system needed reconsideration.

 

That was happened on Saturday the 1 February at the India International Centre which was witness to a fascinating, freewheeling conversation on the state of the Indian judiciary, what it needs to do to ensure it dispenses justice and the cases India must not forget in the years to come.

 

The discussion took place as a part of the launch of Dr. Chintan Chandrachud’s new book, The Cases That India Forgot (Juggernaut Books, 2020). The book explores the stories behind some of India’s landmark cases on religion, gender, civil liberties and national security – some of which saw the judiciary step up, while others saw the courts ‘abdicate their responsibility’ to uphold the rights of citizens, requiring strong civil movements to lead to real change.

 

Justice Sikri was speaking at the launch of the Book  ‘The Cases That India Forgot’—a book authored by Dr. Chintan Chandrachud. Chintan Chandrachud is a son of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, is a lawyer at the London office of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. He has previously authored a book titled Balanced Constitutionalism: Courts and Legislatures in India and the United Kingdom.

 

Despite acknowledging that the system may have been the best one for India thus far, Justice Sikri explained that there are inherent problems with how judges are eventually selected by the Collegium, despite best intentions. Justice Sikri who was a part of the Supreme Court Collegium before demitting office in March last year said frankly “Let me be very blunt. Most times, we go by our impression while appointing judges. It may not be scientific…Many times those taken may not be deserving candidates and those deserving might be left out. That needs to be taken care of.”

 

Justice Sikri said that the Collegium system is not provided for in the Constitution and it was created in 1993 through a Supreme Court verdict that reduced the role of the Executive to mere checking of antecedents of the selected candidates and issuance of formal warrant of appointment.

 

Justice Sikri said in two of his judgments, Justice Chandrachud has alluded to the problems in the Collegium system. Justice Chandrachud emphasized the need to bring about a greater sense of diversity within judiciary.

 

Justice Sikri also said, The cases that India forgot talks about 10 legal cases that “have all but faded from public memory”. It also details some other cases that have been criticised for various reasons.

 

Also present at the launch were the author’s father and Supreme Court judge D Y Chandrachud, Additional Solicitor General and senior advocate Madhavi Goradia Divan, Zia Modi of AZB and Partners discussed a range of issues relating to the Indian judiciary with Justice Sikri in the discussion.

 

Justice DY Chandrachud spoke about how, instead of taking criticism of their work in a negative way, judges should understand that this criticism has arisen because of the crucial role the judiciary has assumed in modern society.

 

While Madhavi Divan, who recently took on the post of ASG, agreed there were problems with the Collegium system, she said that it did also throw up some good candidates. “Just being a great lawyer is not necessarily going to make a good judge,” she explained.

 

Speaking on the occasion, Zia Mody stress the need for the courts to focus on issues of gender diversity in a way that not just address the cases before them, but will also help lead to societal change, referring to Justice Chandrachud’s method of using female pronouns, rather than male ones in his judgments as one of the small ways in which the institution could work towards this.

 

Talking at the moment, Dr. Chintan Chandrachud, who is a lawyer at the London offices of global law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart also raised concerns over the “cases that India forgot to decide” which is basically a question of prioritisation by the judges. Noting that the Indian Supreme Court is very different from other ‘supreme’ courts as it hears so many more cases than those in other countries, he said there was often a problem of urgent cases not being heard in time, until it’s too late. And so therefore, I think this idea of judicial avoidance is also something we need to think about. And the good and bad decisions that the court has taken also need to be considered in tandem with the decisions the court has simply avoided.”

 

The panel was moderated by Shekhar Gupta, editor-in-chief of ThePrint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

News Courtesy:PIB | Hindu| DC | LE | LI | LO | IE | LL | PTI |ht | ET | UNI | DNA | FP | Jurist |IndToday|

---

 

Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced supplied by the concerned either as press release, press statement or via other source of information, websearch engines and internet and do not reflect views of Lawtime and hence Lawtime is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, India info Comm Network's website Lawtime.in is not responsible for any of the copy right violation or for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this news article

 

 

Comments

Name*:
Phone number:
Email address*:
Comments and questions*:
Enter web form code*: reload image * - required fields.