‘Goa Has What Constitution Makers Envisaged’: CJI Hails Uniform Civil Code of State

CJI S.A. Bobde called upon intellectuals to visit the state to see how it had affected the administration of justice in the state.

New Delhi: Amidst the ongoing debate on the uniform civil code (UCC) in the country, chief justice of India (CJI) S.A. Bobde hailed the UCC of Goa on Saturday, March 27, and advised intellectuals who often speak on the issue to visit the state to see how it affected the administration of justice.

The chief justice was in Goa’s Porvorim to inaugurate a new building for Bombay high court and touched upon the contentious issue. “Goa has what constitutional framers envisaged for India  – a Uniform Civil Code,” he declared, and added that he had had the privilege of administering such under “that code”.

Continuing further, he said, “It applies in marriage and succession, governing all Goans irrespective of religious affiliation. I have heard a lot of academic talk about the Uniform Civil Code. I would request all those intellectuals to simply come here and learn the administration of justice to know what it turns out to be.”

Recounting the days when he served in the Goa bench of the Bombay high court, he said there was something unique to the particular bench and that was the variety of cases he had heard. He said that if in India there is any bench that gives a variety of experiences and challenges as Supreme Court, it is only the constitution bench at Goa.

Also read: Yet Another Petition for the Uniform Civil Code in a Vacuum

“When you sit on a constitution bench in Goa, You can expect to hear a land acquisition case, a Section 302 murder appeal, a public interest litigation, a question under administrative law, income tax, sales tax and excise law,” he added.

Speaking on the occasion, Justice N.V. Ramana, who is set to become the next chief justice of India, called for the modernisation of judicial infrastructure and the establishment of the National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation.

“Talking of impediments in the path of modernisation, financial constraints must never come in the path of progress. There is a need for the Centre and States to co-operate and create a National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation, as a one-time measure, to cater to the need for judicial infrastructure in the country. Such a corporation would bring the uniformity and standardisation required to revolutionise judicial infrastructure,” Ramana said, according to the Indian Express.

SC Says Centre Should Act on Recommendation to Appoint More HC Judges Within Reasonable Time Frame

The Supreme Court said the Centre should respond to its collegium’s recommendations and appoint ad-hoc judges in the high courts to reduce the pendency of cases.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday said the Centre should respond to its collegium recommendations within a reasonable time frame and favoured appointment of ad-hoc judges in the high courts to reduce the pendency of cases in the judiciary.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bobde and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Surya Kant took note of the delay on the part of the Central government in acting on the collegium’s recommendations.

It said that at each stage there is a certain thought process and therefore there should be reasonable time frame within which the Union Ministry of Law and Justice should act. After collegium recommends, they need to reply in a specific time frame. The bench said there are certain recommendations which are pending before the government for the past six months.

It asked attorney general K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, to make a statement regarding clearing of names recommended by the top court collegium. Venugopal said that he will respond to this on the next date of hearing.

The bench also sought responses from all the high courts on the possibility of ad-hoc judges as per Article 224A of the Constitution on a plea filed by an NGO Lok Prahari, seeking appointment of additional judges in the high courts in order to reduce the pendency.

Also read: Over 3.5 Crore Cases Pending Across Courts in India, Little Change in Numbers Since 2014

Article 224-A of the Constitution says, “…the Chief Justice of a High Court for any State may at any time, with the previous consent of the President, request any person who has held the office of a Judge of that Court or of any other High Court to sit and act as a Judge of the High Court for that State.”

Referring to some of the cases which are pending for more than 30 years in the high courts and trial courts, the top court said that appointment of ad-hoc judges can bring the pendency under control. The CJI said Article 224A of the Constitution is not being used and the court may lay down guidelines for appointment of ad-hoc judges if the pendency goes beyond a certain limit.

Senior advocate R.S. Suri said that ad-hoc appointment can be made after regular vacancies are filled. The bench said that it does not favour a system where regular appointments of judges are stalled for the appointment of ad-hoc judges.

On January 27, 2021, the top court had taken strong note of the delay on the part of the Central government in acting on the collegium’s recommendations of clearing names for appointment of judges in higher judiciary, saying it is a matter of great concern. The apex court had then said that as on date 189 proposals on appointment of judges are pending and sought an update on the latest position from the government.

Supreme Court Dismisses Jagan’s Complaint Against Justice N.V. Ramana

The statement by the apex court came hours after reports said that CJI S.A. Bobde has started the process for Justice Ramana to succeed him.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has dismissed Andhra Pradesh chief minister Y.S. Jagan’s complaint against Supreme Court judge N.V. Ramana, next in line to be the chief justice of India, saying an in-house inquiry had been conducted into the allegations.

According to LiveLaw, the court issued a statement which said the complaint, received on October 6, 2020, had been dismissed and that all matters dealt with under the in-house procedure are confidential and are not liable to be made public.

The statement came just hours after reports said that Chief Justice of India (CJI) S.A. Bobde has recommended Justice N.V. Ramana, the senior-most judge after him, as his successor and the 48th chief justice of India. His decision is in keeping with convention and norms of seniority.

CJI Bobde, who is set to retire on April 23, 2021, has sent the recommendation to the government and handed over a copy to Justice Ramana, news agency PTI reported. As per norms, a written communication from the incumbent Chief Justice is sent a month before his retirement.

If the recommendation is approved by the government, Justice Ramana will take charge as the next Chief Justice of India on April 24, 2021. He is set to retire on August 26, 2022. CJI Bobde’s recommendation, which marks the start of the process for appointment of the next Chief Justice of India, will be forwarded to the President by the government for approval.

Jagan’s complaint formally accused a sitting member of the higher judiciary of political bias and even corruption.

Also read: Andhra CM Jagan Declares War on Justice Ramana, Next-in-Line to be Chief Justice of India

Born on August 27, 1957 in Ponnavaram village of Andhra Pradesh’s Krishna district, Justice Ramana was enrolled as an advocate on February 10, 1983. He was appointed as a permanent Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on June 27, 2000 and functioned as acting Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court from March 10, 2013 to May 20, 2013.

Justice Ramana was elevated as the Chief Justice of Delhi high court on September 2, 2013 and was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court on February 17, 2014.

EC Opposes Stay on Electoral Bonds as SC Reserves Order on Plea to Restrain Fresh Sales

The Election Commission, while advocating for transparency, said that the stay on bonds would mean going back to the era of unaccounted cash transfers.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on March 24 reserved order on a fresh petition seeking a stay on the opening of the window for sale of electoral bonds before the elections in West Bengal, Kerala, Assam, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.

The Association for Democratic Reforms had filed the petition which was being heard by CJI S.A. Bobde and Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramaniam. In the fresh plea, ADR had cited that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) pertaining to funding of political parties and alleged lack of transparency in their accounts was already pending.

According to a report by LiveLaw, the Election Commission, while advocating for transparency, told the court that it was opposed to the stay on bonds. “The issue of transparency can be considered at the final argument stage, and there should be no interim stay,” ECI counsel and senior lawyers Rakesh Dwivedi told the Supreme Court.

The Election Commission said that the stay on electoral bonds would mean going back to the era of unaccounted cash transfers, which would cause further damage.

On January 20, 2020, the apex court had refused to grant an interim stay on the 2018 electoral bonds scheme and sought responses of the Centre and the Election Commission on an interim application by ADR, seeking a stay on the scheme.

Also read: Transparency Activists Lament SC’s Refusal to Grant Interim Stay on Electoral Bonds

In an expansive report, LiveLaw highlighted portions of the arguments and back and forth between ADR advocate Prashant Bhushan and the bench.

Saying that the anonymous bonds “legalised corruption,” Bhushan primarily raised the objections earlier put forward by the Reserve Bank of India, and the Election Commission to such a scheme.

When the Chief Justice reportedly said that any party and not just the one in government could avail themselves of bonds, Bhushan said, “[R]uling party is in a position to give favours. So, companies will support ruling parties, as they are in a position to give benefits.”

Bhushan further said that the government is uniquely positioned to track donors’ identity but such a person remains anonymous to everyone else. Bhushan, however, stressed that “complete anonymity” is not what he is looking for.

Bhushan also highlighted that the method of bringing the laws was a subversion of process. “These amendments are made through the Finance Bill, in order to avoid going to the Rajya Sabha where the government did not have a majority. This cannot be done through Finance Bill,” he said.

LiveLaw further reported that the CJI said, “If what you are saying is correct, we will have to strike down the law. How can it be done through an interim order?”

To this, Bhushan said that temporarily a stay on the new window is what he seeks.

Also read: Ahead of Polls in 4 States, SC Needs to Prioritise the Challenge to Electoral Bonds

After Bhushan highlighted that the EC too had said that bonds should be reported to them and the RBI had been concerned that bonds could be transferred to facilitate money laundering and kickbacks, the CJI said, “Your arguments at this stage is more on the point of political morality. This question of morality or ethics regarding black money, was it not considered by this court in the RK Garg case…”

Bhushan, however, urged that this was a question not of morality, but democracy.

The Attorney General for India, K.K. Venugopal, who appeared for the Centre said that the Election Commission had allowed for the sale of bonds. He said electoral bonds were a move away from black money as they used banking channels, to which Bhushan said subsequent purchasers of electoral bonds could well use cash.

“That can be said of any transaction, unless you make it non-transferable,” CJI said to Bhushan’s point.

The CJI also reportedly said, “This angle of possibility of funding of terrorism through funding needs to be examined. It is possible that funds through this mechanism are diverted by particular people for other purposes with an agenda…You can start a protest, with this funding. You can start many things.”

He added, “We don’t want to get into political arena and don’t want to comment on any political party. Suppose, there is a party which wants to finance a protest, which has the potential of violence, can’t they use bonds to fund it?”

SC to Hear Plea Against Opening of Window For Sale of Electoral Bonds

The hearing assumes significance as it will take place ahead of assembly polls in several states, including West Bengal.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear on March 24, 2021 a fresh plea seeking a direction to the Centre and others to not open any further window for sale of electoral bonds during pendency of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) pertaining to funding of political parties and alleged lack of transparency in their accounts.

A bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian took note of the submission of an NGO that its plea be heard urgently.

The hearing assumes significance as it would take place ahead of assembly polls in several states, including West Bengal.

Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, said for the last two years, the PIL has not been listed for hearing. The Reserve Bank of India and the Election Commission have said that illicit monies are being transacted, which is also detrimental to the economy, the lawyer said, adding that on April 1, 2021 the bonds will be issued and hence, the case needed an urgent hearing.

Also read: Ahead of Polls in 4 States, SC Needs to Prioritise the Challenge to Electoral Bonds

The bench asked Bhushan whether the plea for stay on the electoral bond scheme has been rejected earlier by the court. Bhushan replied, it has not been rejected in clear terms as the apex court had earlier asked the political parties to submit their account statements to the poll panel in sealed covers. Since then several developments have taken place, and it has been said that the electoral bonds allow transactions of illicit money, he said.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the bench that attorney general K.K. Venugopal would appear in the case.

The bench fixed the fresh plea, filed in the pending PIL, for hearing on next Wednesday.

The NGO, in its fresh plea, has claimed that there is a serious apprehension that any further sale of electoral bonds before the upcoming assembly elections, including in West Bengal and Assam, would further increase illegal and illicit funding of political parties through shell companies.

On January 20, 2020 last year, the apex court had refused to grant interim stay on the 2018 Electoral Bonds Scheme and sought responses of the Centre and the Election Commission on an interim application by the NGO seeking stay on the scheme.

‘Don’t Want to Interfere at This Stage’: SC Refuses to Hear Pleas on Tractor Rally Violence

“We have read statement made by the prime minister in the press that the law will take its own course,” said the apex court bench.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday refused to entertain a plea seeking setting up of a committee headed by a former apex court judge to conduct a time-bound probe into the violence during the tractor rally in Delhi on Republic Day.

A bench headed by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde asked lawyer Vishal Tiwari, who had filed the PIL, to give a representation to the central government for taking necessary action.

“We are sure that the government is inquiring into [the violence] and they are doing it. We have read statement made by the prime minister in the press that the law will take its own course. That means they are inquiring into it. We do not want to interfere in it at this stage,” said the bench, also comprising justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian.

Also read: Group of 141 Lawyers Write to CJI Against Centre Blocking Internet at Farmers’ Protest

The apex court also refused to entertain two similar pleas related to the tractor rally violence and asked the petitioners to file representation with the government.

The tractor parade on January 26, 2021, that was to highlight the demands of farmer unions to repeal three new agricultural laws turned violent as thousands of protesters broke through barriers, fought with the police, overturned vehicles and hoisted a religious flag from the ramparts of the iconic Red Fort.

Kunal Kamra and the Elasticity of Justice

Far from reigning in the government’s excesses, which is what its constitutional duty is, the higher judiciary appears to be encouraging it by its silence, selective orders and even acceptance of post retirement sinecures and appointments.

The question goes like this:

Question: What is contempt of court?
Answer: A joke.

That’s literally true in the India of today: three jokes on the Supreme Court, posted on Twitter by stand up comedian Kunal Kamra, are likely to attract contempt of court proceedings against him. That in fact is the learned advice of the Attorney General who, just a couple of days earlier, had opined that accusing a sitting SC judge of favouritism and of trying to topple a state government did not amount to contempt. It should surprise no one, of course, that in this case, the worthy concerned was a chief minister allied to the BJP.

The elasticity of justice in this country is indeed astounding, and on the same footing as the economic principle of elasticity of demand. The latter states that the higher the price of a commodity, the lower its demand; the former provides that the more influential a person is, the more benevolent the law and its gatekeepers.

Kunal Kamra is a comedian, and a good one too. It is his job to crack jokes and pull people down a peg or two. It is his constitutional right to practice this profession, and he does a better job of it than most judges do of theirs. In fact, one writer has described him as the ‘Laughing Gandhi’, for his courage to hold a mirror to the powerful, albeit with a dash of caustic humour.

Why should their lordships get so infuriated by a couple of sallies targeting them – he spares no one, not even the prime minister or his pit bull anchor. Kamra  belongs to a hoary tradition of court jesters – recollect Akbar and Birbal, Patch Sexton in the court of Henry VIII (who inspired Shakespeare’s fool in King Lear) – whose job was not only to amuse the king but also to remind him of a few home truths. Comedians are important sounding boards for all rulers, and our legal czars would do well to revisit history, if not the constitution. Calling the Supreme Court a joke is just a joke, your honour, unless you feel in your heart of hearts that it is more than that – that it could be a terrible truth – in which case it is not the court’s honour which is at work here, but a guilty conscience.

Also read: Attorney General Venugopal Would Be Shocked at US Comedians Making Fun of Judges

And, by the way, this is the Supreme Court we are talking of here, not King Arthur’s court or Kublai Khan’s court. This is a court of a democratic country, created by a constitution framed by we, the people, and paid for by the same citizenry who have no access to it. Criticism of this court, if there is no malice or ulterior intention behind it, cannot be a ground for the Attorney General or judges to term the critic a contemnor. Pomposity and pride do not go well with honest and equal dispensation of justice. Humility might be a better substitute.

I am reminded here of another humorous incident. A senior justice of the US Supreme Court had gone to his old law university as a chief guest for a function. Meeting the dean, he remarked in a lighter vein: “Dean, do you still teach your students about the pomposity and bluster of judges?”

The dean smiled, and replied: “No, your honour, we let them find that out for themselves.”

Are we now finding out for ourselves, with so much time and energy spent by the court in pandering to its aggrieved pride by hauling up alleged contemnors? Should this time (paid for by taxpayers) not be better spent in some introspection by our judges to try to find out why exactly is the ordinary citizen so incensed by the manner of the court’s functioning of late, to honestly consider why social media is full of derision against them? To ruminate on whether praise from the likes of Arnab Goswami and BJP spokespersons are really the certificates of good conduct they prefer over the appreciation of millions of ordinary, law abiding, unconnected citizens?

It appears to be ‘reigning contempt’ these days, which of course is another joke, considering that important matters which have a bearing on our federalism, electoral funding, liberty of citizens, access to the internet and freedom of speech never find mention in the cause list. But if contempt is the flavour of the day, then one wonders: why is the court not initiating contempt against the chief secretary and DGP of Jammu and Kashmir, whose administration had sworn on oath that ex-MP Saifuddin Soz was not under detention, whereas the very next day the police were caught on video forcibly preventing him from leaving his house or talking to reporters? Does Kamra’s tweet constitute a greater danger to the republic than the open defiance and illegal actions of the Jammu and Kashmir government?

As a common citizen owing no allegiance to any political party, I have much to be disturbed about our legal system, which appears to be getting more opaque, unaccountable and biased with each passing day. One which has abdicated its primary function – to act as a check on a powerful and majoritarian executive. The rule of law is getting replaced by the jurisprudence of the sealed cover, the fait accompli and the adjournment. It’s not just about Arnab Goswami and his over-the-counter bail, when hundreds similarly placed with their bail petitions being repeatedly rejected or hearings postponed, have been behind bars for months.

Also read: Arnab Goswami and Varavara Rao, Unequal Citizens Before the Law

It’s not just about a judgment that denies public places to citizens protesting against a government. It’s not even about an order that does not allow an opposition chief minister to take action against defectors from his party who are hell bent on toppling his government. These are symptoms of a creeping infection against which we, and not just Kamra, must speak out before it consumes the entire judicial framework. Before we descend into what Pratap Bhanu Mehta, in a November 18 article in the Indian Express, describes as ” democratic and judicial barbarism”.

Notwithstanding the honorifics attached to their names, our justices must realise that they are not celestial beings; the constitution does not give them their extraordinary privileges and protection because they embody some kind of divinity. It does so because they are expected to perform a difficult job – confront the government and hold it accountable whenever it crosses a constitutional red line. That is no longer happening since the last three CJIs at least, as Prashant Bhushan had pointed out in his now famous tweet. In a democracy there is no judicial teflon, and there is no “lese majesty” when there is no majesty left in an institution. Sriram Panchu, senior advocate in the Madras high court puts it devastatingly in a brilliant article in the Hindu on November 16:

“Power (of the Supreme Court) comes not from Articles 32 or 226 but from the public esteem and regard in which you are held, and that proceeds from the extent you act as our constitutional protector. In direct proportion. Sans that, there are only trappings.”

Also read: Backstory: Journalism and the Power of Laughter

Cases which may embarrass the government are not being heard for years, without any explanation. The collegium appears to have completely surrendered to the government in matters of appointment and transfer of judges (how can we forget the midnight transfer of Justice S. Muralidharan of the Delhi high court when his questioning of the Delhi police in the riots case threatened to expose their mischief?)

Application of the law has become so arbitrary, and capricious, that at times one wonders whether one is in a court or a casino. Goswami gets bail in one hearing, others are asked to approach high courts or trial courts. An 83-year-old priest, who suffers from Parkinsons disease and cannot hold a glass, applies for a sipper or straw: he is given a date three weeks later for hearing the case. An eminent academic and poet, who should never have been in a jail in the first place, suffers from COVID-19, dementia, incontinence and severe UTI; his bail applications are repeatedly rejected and he is shuttled from one hospital to another. Our courts are losing not only the sense of justice, but also that of simple humanitarianism. The law is supposed to be strict, not cruel and barbaric – how does one explain it to our judges?

Far from reigning in the government’s excesses, which is what its constitutional duty is, the higher judiciary appears to be encouraging it by its silence, selective orders and even acceptance of post retirement sinecures and appointments. Many years ago, a Chief Justice, when told by the then prime minister that he looked forward to a “cordial” relationship with the Supreme Court, had the integrity to retort that the relationship between the executive and the judiciary should be “correct” and not cordial. It is impossible to even conceive of this kind of rectitude today. Such an amalgam of courage and principles, unfortunately, is to be found in the pages of history only, and that too only till the time the education minister revises the syllabus.

In the hands of the present government at the Centre and in some of the states, the law is running amok and the SC appears to be reluctant to stop this arbitrariness. Application of laws is no longer based on accepted general principles – as it should be – but is subject to individual interpretations. Even repeated rulings of the apex court are no longer binding on lower courts, it would appear. Examples are the laws on sedition, free speech, criminal defamation, abetment to suicide: despite the Supreme Court narrowing their scope and application to prevent their misuse, lower courts continue to throw people into jails or lock-ups just on the say so of the police, without even examining the evidence – or lack of it – before them. In fact, these laws have become major tools of persecution in the hands of the executive.

Similarly, the oft cited homily “bail is the rule, and jail the exception”, is just that – a homily which it takes a lot of faith to believe, like the numerous high sounding, sanctimonious obiter dicta delivered by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud while overruling the Mumbai high court in the Arnab Goswami case. One would have expected that the SC, both as the superior court and the administrative head of the judiciary, would have done something to ensure that its rulings and decisions are observed and respected. It has not, and we are descending into some kind of legal wasteland.

And it is not only the likes of Kunal Kamra, who are increasingly giving expression to their misgivings and frustration at this state of affairs, concerns are being voiced by eminent retired judges of the SC and high courts, senior members of the legal fraternity, sections of the media which still retain a spine, retired government officers, academia, frustrated litigants and relatives of those trapped in this dystopian legal system. Even international organisations associated with human rights and the judiciary have openly criticised us and have called for reforms.

How many contempt petitions will you list, sirs? A joke repeated too often is no longer funny and loses its punch. Listen to Kamra, your Honours and the Attorney General. His is the voice of an increasing number of people. Like all comedians, he perhaps exaggerates a bit – but not by much, I can assure you.

Avay Shukla is a retired IAS officer. A version of this article appeared on his blog and has been edited by The Wire for style.

For the Second Time, AG Gives Nod to Contempt Proceedings Against Kunal Kamra

Following the interim bail granted to television anchor Arnab Goswami, Kunal Kamra has put out several tweets criticising the Supreme Court and its judges.

New Delhi: Attorney General K. K. Venugopal has granted his consent to initiate contempt of court proceedings against stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra for his recent tweet targeting Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde.

This is the second time in about a fortnight that the attorney general has allowed for contempt proceedings against Kamra, after his series of tweets had criticised the Supreme Court following the bail secured by television anchor Arnab Goswami at the top court the first time.

In his recent tweet on November 18, Kamra posted a picture of his index and middle finger against an airplane window with the caption: “One of these 2 fingers is for CJI Arvind Bobde… ok let me not confuse you it’s the middle one.”

Also read: Contempt of Court: Won’t Apologise for Tweets, Kunal Kamra Says

After this tweet went viral, an Allahabad high court advocate Anuj Singh wrote to attorney general Venugopal on Thursday requesting him to initiate contempt proceedings against the comic for posting “objectionable” tweet against the CJI.

Granting his consent to contempt proceedings, Venugopal said Kamra’s tweet was not only aimed at “deliberately” insulting CJI but also to undermine the faith litigants place in the apex court.

K K Venugopal

Attorney general K K Venugopal’s response to Allahabad high court advocate Anuj Singh.

“The said tweet is grossly vulgar and obnoxious, and I have no doubt that it would tend to lower the authority of the Supreme Court of India…” Venugopal said in his November 20th letter responding to Anuj Singh.

Meanwhile, Meenakshi Lekhi-led parliamentary committee on personal data protection Bill pulled up Twitter India on Thursday asking why it did not remove Kamra’s “objectionable” tweets against Supreme Court and its judges. It sought a response from the social media giant within a week.

The first-time when Venugopal had allowed for contempt proceedings against him, Kamra said he does not intend to retract his tweets, which came in the wake of bail granted to Arnab Goswami by the top court. “No lawyers, No apology, No fine, No waste of space,” he had tweeted.

Reacting to Goswami’s bail, Kamra had said his tweets represented his view that the Supreme Court was “giving a partial decision in favour of a Prime Time Loudspeaker”. He had said that the Supreme Court maintained a silence on the matters of personal liberty in other cases, adding that such conduct cannot go uncriticised.