|
|
NJAC debate: Political say in judges' appointment
|
|
|
|
| Top Stories |
 |
|
|
|
Bikky Khosla | 20 Oct, 2015
Should politicians have a say in the appointment of judges? The Supreme Court last week struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act as "unconstitutional and void". It viewed that the Act was against the concept of "separation of powers" and thus violated the "basic structure" of the Constitution. To the surprise of none, heated arguments and counter arguments followed the verdict. Critics, including some top ministers, slammed the move severely, with our finance minister going to the extent of saying that democracy in India cannot be "a tyranny of the unelected".
The NJAC Act sought to replace the two-decade old collegium system -- under which the judges to the higher courts are appointed by a collegium of judges -- with a selection panel comprising, the SC Chief Justice, two other senior most SC judges, Union Minister of Law and Justice and two eminent persons. The commission was proposed by the UPA government, which during its tenure alleged judicial overreach by the SC in many cases, including those related to black money SIT, 2G scam and instant disqualification of MPs and MLAs on conviction for criminal offences. Later, during the current government -- which has raised similar allegations in more than one instance, including CAG appointment and environment restrictions -- the bill was passed unanimously by both Houses of Parliament.
Most of our politicians, putting aside their narrow party differences, have come together now to claim that the NJAC Act, if implemented, would have made the judicial appointment process more transparent and democratic. Theoretically, it sounds convincing to some extent and some legal experts also support this argument, but there are many who believe that allowing the entry of politicians in the process of judicial appointment will only pollute the judicial system. The SC verdict, they say, is not a setback to parliamentary sovereignty, as claimed by the government, but it has, in contrast, protected the independence of our judiciary from legislative encroachment.
Amid this debate, I am wondering what the general public opinion is on the controversy. What is your view? Do you think that the SC verdict is really against parliamentary sovereignty, or we are just being bamboozled by such talks? Political scientist Harold Laski once famously said that parliamentary system gives the executive an opportunity for tyranny, but our executive seems to be more concerned about tyranny of the judiciary. Is there any real ground for such fears? The framers of our Constitution have preferred a proper balance between parliamentary sovereignty and judiciary supremacy and the SC verdict on NJAC, in my view, is very unlikely to disturb this balance, if not strengthens it.
I invite your opinions.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Politic vs Democracy
Nassedh | Fri Dec 4 02:57:09 2015
Sir, the appointment of judges nationally need to be also a member of the human rights. one should be eligible for an appointment base on his/her remarks and performance. frequently stood on behalf of poor citizen and innocent public by universally undeniable truth delivery of justice. The term Democracy cannot be misused in certain issues where politics is involved. The politics shuts law and acts in our country even SC. Where in the country, ever solved any cases without lawyer fees or politics within judges? Man make laws and breaks it. I wonder, Its just a waste of time and not debate because Money is Power and no judges or kanoon for the truth in the eyes of the helpless poor citizen.
National Concern Initiative member.
NJAC
S.Dhamodharan | Fri Nov 13 11:15:54 2015
In a democracy, answerability to the ultimate masters, the electors/consumers, is the key to any establishment. But the Supreme Court seems to wish to avoid the same, and satisfying even genuine guilt-less consumers is far from the aim of Courts. I have a bitter experience in a case simultaneously going on in one Lower Court and High Court; I had to go to HC, as the Lower Court had no power to accept rajinama between myself and my once-accuser; so we wished to exit the Lower Court and appealed to HC, latter behaving exactly like Kumbhkarn and former having nuisance power to continue the case threatening me on arrest etc. if i refuse to participate in its lame-duck proceedings, now! Apart from this very Authentic experience i have seen the following anomalies too in our Judiciary
1. If Arbitration is provided between two parties in a Works Contract, if one party opts for Arbitration, the other can dodge it endlessly. In such case, Court should, simply direct the arbitraion to be carried out, on a simple application, instead of requiring a lengthy and costly process of one party filing a suit in ordinary snail-courts, for avoiding which Arbitration wAs initially agreed!
2. Courts accept harassing cases even without checking if the Court has jurisdiction. A Chennai party was harassed in Mumbai, when the contract specified Chennai as place for Arbitration!
Judges have several hearings, each time stating reasons like "summon awaited" etc., when fault is on them,not initiating summon.
SC Collegium- Most Currupted Public Sector with Limited Justice
Anonymous | Mon Oct 26 13:14:04 2015
The major inside to this topic is
1. Is supreme court giving judgements in alignment with constitution.
2. why It is releasing all the people who commits crime, Money laundering... in to Indian market simply when the cases against them are basically proved.
3. How much the CJI and group of SC judges take bribe to give bail....
4. Does supreme court comes under the scanning of constitution.
5. If comes under the scanning who will be the ultimate public body( SC Or President).
6. Who is it say that only this particular law is applicable to me and the rest doesn't matter to me...
7. if a man say i have just used my pistol whether it is working or not on other person does sc review the case as attempt to murder.. or trail run of gun
Finally if the SC gives its ruling as per constitution prepared by Public representatives then why they not support NJAC...
If SC Does not Support NJAC it means it is not acting as per constitution. further the validity of its rulings should not be considered by any public body framed under constitution.
NJAC debate
Mahesh Kulkarni | Mon Oct 26 07:22:19 2015
Sir,
We may/can always oppose the motive of politicians, but Judges appointing Judges should also have an independent members in the committee.
Leave aside politicians, but there can always be a third/fourth alternative, which can be more fruitful for the nation. We should find it.
NJAC debate
CAPT. PAWAN KUMAR ANCHAL | Sun Oct 25 11:32:20 2015
I agree with the opinion that verdict on NJAC is very unlikely to disturb the balance of powers, however, present collegium is also not full proof system to stop corruption and mismanagement in judicial system of country. In judicial system also lobbying is going on all over the country. Higher judicial officials who are suppose to monitor and supervise their subordinates are misusing their power in various ways.Arbitrary and biased appointment of Higher Judicial Officers in High Courts is going on from many years. Persons who are influential or are a part of a lobby only finds a place in appointments. A very few real intelligent advocate like Justice R Nariman etc have got place in judicial system of country that too due to equally good Justice Lodha etc. Presence of such type of justices only is taking of care of judicial system of country otherwise situation of corruption or arbitrariness is also very serious in judicial system of the country. Hence some guidelines and criteria shall be evolved for accountability of judges at all levels by providing them suitable protection also. Posting of advocates in Higher Judicial system in their home state shall be avoided to reduce arbitrariness, corruption and improvement of judicial system.
NJAC
SRIHARIRAO | Sun Oct 25 07:35:56 2015
Mercenaries cannot claim to be absolutely independent. all judges come from practicing lawyers who eke out their livelihood from suspected criminals without any ethics.E.G.Ram Jitmalani and company.
|
|
Re: NJAC
LAWYER is a MASK for Corrupted Group | Mon Oct 26 13:18:16 2015
Jetalmani might be one of the most corrupted public gentlemen living in this world...
|
|
DEBATE
KAPOOR NARINDER | Sun Oct 25 04:50:30 2015
The moot point of this issue is the independence of judiciary.The involvement of politician is objected on the presumption that the politicians shall use the forum to their wish and inclinations, which is reflected in the other fields they are involved in .My basic objection is why the system cannot be made so that all the judicial officers in the judiciary should be of the standards to be fit for the posts leaving very little scope of their inefficiency as disqualification for the said posts.As they are supposed to deliver justice and bring confidence to the people in the system.At least the quote (I take you to the court)Be the hope .As for the selection fittest among the fit should be left to the wisdom of the highly objective and learned one the politician this way or that way shall find ways to influence the judiciary to their benefit.We should focus more on the selection of judges from the very junior levels where the people are effected the time has come review that system too.So that the judiciary should remain the confidence and hope of the masses not only collegium system other court related issues should also be under the efficient hands of judges.(The quotation thousand fools should not mum a Socrates) his wisdom is highly useful to us
Judiciary should be independent
s .krishnan | Sat Oct 24 15:25:37 2015
Judiciary should be independent of any political intervention as the Judiciary is one of the pillers of Democracy as per the constitution .
NJAC
V V Iyer | Sat Oct 24 10:37:18 2015
As though judiciary is not corrupt. If seen the past, the judges relatives are appointed as judges and appointment outside the relation is rare. NJAC is far better and NJAC needs to be made more specific as to its members and not in colloquial and general wordings.
Political say in judges' appointment
VINAY DANGE | Fri Oct 23 11:34:56 2015
There should not be political say in judges appointment.
Not at all acceptable. Tolerable.
CWG, 2G , coal gate
ANIL K JAIN | Fri Oct 23 09:53:38 2015
Recent past happening CWG, 2G , coal gate have proved that India could not be safe without an independent and powerful judiciary. The very fact that all political rivals have joined hands against judiciary is conclusive proof of their insecurity from a robust judiciary. My salute to all those ,including Mr. B Bhattacharyya, former ASG, who took the courage to challenge NJAC even before it was notified.
NJAC debate: Political say in judges' appointment
S K Sinha | Fri Oct 23 08:57:00 2015
Parliament and SC are the two pillars of Indian Democracy which keeps an eye over each other for their act and suitable bill / Orders are passed in case either tries to violate the system. I am in total agreement with the decision given by SC on this issue. Problems with current system can be eliminated by reviewing the criterion of selection of panel for interview so that good people should come forward for the post.
Independent renowned people can be included in the system who can be an observer during the selection process so as to have a check / restrict any biased decision.
NJAC ACT
Dharanidharan | Fri Oct 23 08:54:00 2015
If the judiciary system wants to maintain it independence it must serve better who is responsible for present judiciary system Lac of cases pending delay in delivering judgement in effective in controlling crime who demands independence of judiciary system takes responsibility and agree their inefficiency in running the judiciary system and resign from their service to give way to efficient person take over administration to clear all pending case in a fixed time frame efficiently reduce the crime That what the people need
msraju fm up | Fri Oct 23 08:27:56 2015
Govt is right.the reason behind is power should not be in one hand.or one kind of people. just like our parliament. there are elected mps.and other kind of also.so there is ptopet balance in that.i think all community have the talent,genius they can give transparent justice to the people of india.we should not give the all the power to decide the selection of judge to collegium. thats all .makers of our coinstitutions didnot intended to hand over the power of few people.for an example we r proceeding to village panchayat.here we r dependong on collegium. that is not fare i think.msraju fm up
Judges apppointment
Sukumaran | Fri Oct 23 07:30:18 2015
We definitely need a "NJAC" mechanism; but certainly not under the BJP governance, because it is prone to misuse, abuse and overuse.
However, even in the NJAC there should not be any political nominee.
The impeachment process of punishment of corrupt Judges should be done away with and they should be brought under the Lok Jan Pal.
njac act
ajaz malik | Fri Oct 23 07:14:52 2015
The larger issue the judiciary will have to think about is the primacy of the will of the people in democratic India. Both Houses of Parliament had passed the NJAC Bill and 20 state assemblies have already ratified it. By committing itself against the NJAC, the Supreme Court with one stone wasted the opportunity of tweaking the NJAC to its satisfaction in consultation with the government and, secondly, has put itself in an impossible position to defend in future its preferred system of appointing judges on its own.
Political Say in appointment in judges
S.Pathak | Fri Oct 23 06:39:15 2015
As per my view politics should not have any say or interference in appointment of judges; politics should not have any interference in judicial area at all.
NJAC debate: Political say in judges' appointment
Dharmendra Kumar Jha | Fri Oct 23 04:53:04 2015
Indian constitution has been divided in 2 parts one is Govt. and other is People. Govt. is divided in 3 parts, 1) Legislative 2) Judiciary & 3) Executive. All are combined with some responsibilities and responsibilities cant be fulfilled perfectly without power. So all 3 parts are kept independent in our constitution so that can do work properly. It is necessary to control benefit of interest by itself. Legislative already have power to make laws because they are elected by people but they are a people also and must be covered under law. If they will get the power to appoint judiciary then they always try to protect themselves. In the present political scenario, I need not to explain that how corrupt our politicians are? So how can we expect that a corrupt people will appoint judiciary by keeping their self interest a side? This is big question?
NJAC
G Balachandhran | Fri Oct 23 04:48:38 2015
Reason not specified why it is unconstitutional and void in which article or section it has been specified. Appointment of judges by act only so in act itself alternate solution made for selection committee and president may react according to the act
NJAC Debate
Sunil Gupta | Thu Oct 22 23:55:35 2015
Most of the people do not understand the NJAC. They have condemned it to the dust bin because politicians are on the selection committee. The politicians are the PM, the Law Minister and the Leader of the opposition. As against 3 Politicians there are CJI and 2 Senior Judges of SC. So the balance is maintained. Any 2 to Veto. So if Judges do not approve of any person, they too could veto as much as the politicians. The arbitrators are the 2 other prominent persons of repute.The selection system was to be opaque.
Consider the present Collegeum.It is totally secret. Hence it has created an army of Judges who are the Kith, Kin, Friends and Juniors of the ruling Judges. The 5 Bench Judge never allowed Mr. Mathews Nedumpara to be heard on this subject. They just made him shut up. The Scora is a private body and it filed a PIL. Do you understand that a PIL can be filed only for the uneducated and poor public who cannot appeal for Justice on their own merit. This Scora is by no yard stick even close to being uneducated and poor. They do not even represent the public . The representatives of the public the parliament and state assemblies had given their verdict. The judgement is under these conditions is no judgement, but who is to strike it down? t This happened because of the Collegeum who for 2 decades have unquestionable powers and complete immunity from accountability. The Kith and Kin syndrome has spawned havoc in the judicial set up. The Judges are also accountable to Indians
NJAC debate
Jawaid iqbal | Thu Oct 22 18:11:51 2015
It's very big propaganda to demolished our judiciary system which is very transparent and equal to everyone but today's politicians wants not only parliamentary systems to theirs pocket but also judiciary also it will be effect the judgments by choice judge
New system VS old system
NS KHAMESRA | Thu Oct 22 17:47:46 2015
Every one AGREES that the appointment system need to be changed; now the question is how ? either some rules to be change in old system or a new system to be adopted
the middle path is that the COMPLETE list of judges to be cleared by the new system and not specified for particular post .This list goes to the old system and that system put the particular post for particular person and that selected list finally goes to the president of India for final stamp within seven days say yes or no and that is final word .By adoption this system some check and balance can be created in the system and time by time some suggestion or changes can be made
NJAC
P Kumar | Thu Oct 22 16:54:37 2015
NJAC debate
Nalini Rajkumar | Thu Oct 22 10:48:05 2015
We are not here to decide whether Politicians or Judges are corrupt.The S C verdict should be analysed with respect to Constitution. The constitution allows only Parliament to make laws or amend the same. The judiciary has no such such powers. When parliament amended the law with NJ A C against collegium, SC has no powers to amend the same. The Collegium has become history and SC has no authority to amend the same. This case has arisen as a dispute between Judiciary and Parliament and both have got independent Powers. By this illegal judgement Judiciary has removed the powers of Parliament and the will of people. Tomorrow an arrogant SC can throw all laws as it has become absolute power holder and it is dangerous. After all NJAC only appoints Judges and there the public interest is not affected. All cases are handled by Judiciary only where Public interest is involved and politicians and Parliament has no say. SC should only honour the laws framed by Parliament.Tomorrow a bad SC can throw away the acts of parliament which does not suits its fancy. It is erroneous to say that corrupt politicians can escape if Judiciary is vigilant. Similarly bad Judges cannot get support with vigilant Parliament .
NJAC relevance
AKARORA | Thu Oct 22 16:48:20 2015
Independence of Judiciary is biggest assurance to common citizen. Citizen understands this in the context of delivery of Justice.It is distinct from transparent appointment process. Collegium is admittedly a system fraught with risks. Sanctity of Judicial independence will be cemented with a constitutional system with all safeguards. NJAC was a step in that direction. If we take pride in our Election Commission for holding free and fair elections for appointment of legislators, there should be no hesitation to NJAC for rule driven and fully safeguarded Judicial appointments. Rejection of independent NJAC does not inspire confidence. Both politicians and Judiciary must rise to the occasion and out in place a constitutional system respected by priest and future generations.
Debate on NJAC
g.c.mohapatro | Thu Oct 22 16:37:05 2015
In my opinion, neither NJAC nor old collegium system is appropriate. It would be better if the judges will be recruited through UPSC and top rankers will be selected as IJS,then IAS and so on.Moreover the selected procedure is not more appropriate since there might have some influence.more over the regarding implementation of RTI Act the judiciary is not so transparent.
NJAC Debate
P P Madan | Thu Oct 22 16:34:11 2015
It is a thought provoking question, How the judiciary remains independent if the judges select themselves? No, not acceptable. This could have been true if courts were efficient, non corrupt, rising to common citizens aspirations seeking justice. This far away from truth. The high courts and the supreme courts are managed by few prominent advocates, who are known by the so called Face Value. What a term?
The Politicians and the bureaucrats have their own axes to grind and square their differences.
The dear President is selected by Party majority, and therefore is expected to look after part's interest along with nations interest.
Which is a bunch of persons, for whom only national interest or common citizen is important and care less about government, politicians, judiciary yet knows about legal process well, bureaucracy yet understands the system.
A separate panel should be set up:
Five advocates none selected by chief justice (all selected by High courts)
Five advocates selected by best performing lower court judges or advocates.
Two university professors.
Three school teachers.
Five doctors from major or government hospitals or other wise
Five persons from literature, poets, arts etc.
Five politicians of repute.
Ten business men.
Five Farmers.
A core team of 100 persons should be formed under the constitution nominated from all fields, and they should be presented with a large number of nominees and ideal persons should be voted to lead under the oath.
NJAC
Mahendra | Thu Oct 22 12:03:36 2015
The people of India still have faith in the judiciary. The umpteen no of cases of corruption some involving politicians are at the doors of supreme court. If politicians have a say in judiciary we will be unsure if the appts are appropriate on merit or to suit the ruling party.
NJAC
Krishnan Swaminathan | Thu Oct 22 10:48:14 2015
We have to see both sides of the coin. The drawback about the bill is the controversy regarding the eminent persons. The SC instead of quashing the act could have asked the centre to come with more clarity on that point and any other issues it thought fit. But striking down the bill as unconstitutional seems to be overreaching because there is not even a hint of judges appointing themselves in the constitution. Saying that the bill violates constitution does not seem to carry merit. Also in the collegium system. there is no transparency and the total process is shrouded in secrecy. Also the judges so appointed are not accountable. When the other pillars of democracy are accountable this pillar should also be accountable. There is no mechanism to make them accountable. Also nowadays the judiciary is not free from allegations of corruption. At present there is no mechanism to check this and also to subject them to scrutiny. The main point here is the judges do not want to give away their presently held right of appointing themselves which was acquired by them when there were weak govts at Delhi. To conclude I can say that the NJAC act is a reform necessary in today's conditions and it can be discussed and further amended and adopted.
NJAC debate: Political say in judges' appointment
Bhairab | Thu Oct 22 10:11:13 2015
Politicians have no right to appointment supreme court JUDGE. Because politicians always go for majority, in India majority are illiterate and cannot judge even themselves, so they need a guardian like supreme court., where people will get the appropriate.
NJAC
Rakesh Singhal | Thu Oct 22 09:57:05 2015
I have noticed that absolute power cannot be handed over either to judiciary or the politician.
A lot of judges are not appointed by consideration of merit but connections.
I recommend an NJAC with a proviso that any name can be vetoed by 2 persons, and the applicant can thereafter never be considered for a judicial appointment power of 2.
NJAC
Piyush | Thu Oct 22 09:10:26 2015
Collegium system is somehow not correct. It does not happen in any of the appointments. why should it happen in senior judiciary. The modification in the process of system of appointments is the beginning of the process of Judicial improvement. Why should one think of it above all.
NJAC
skbansal | Thu Oct 22 08:19:40 2015
It is ego problem of judges. Some decision of judges are against poors & in favour of rice like SALMAN KHAN, Lallu Yadav, A poor boy was hanged for the same crime rich boy was given life imprisonment.
NJAC judgment
Appan Menon | Thu Oct 22 08:18:02 2015
The sole spirit of the constitution is independence of judiciary, and nothing else? Parliamentary democracy is not? Supremacy of the people to have a say, even indirectly through parliament is not? And then who decides the spirit of the constitution? Are we still interpreting a Magna Carta, and not a well codified constitution of India?
The words basic structure and spirit etc. are perceptions varied from person to person and his mindset. These cannot have scopes further than what is explicitly and elaborately written down by the constitution makers and by those who amended it from time to time.
When they say “Help us improve and better the system”, were they adjudicating or were they campaigning and pleading? The politicians you hold in derogative terms are part and parcel of a parliamentary democracy. They are elected and are responsible to the people, and the judges get appointed, and are not responsible to the people even indirectly. When they hold the people as under-civilized, were they not showing the same mindset as that of a Winston Churchill arguing against giving us independence?
If a democracy is not functioning, it needs reforms and education of the people. A coterie of people cannot take over the functions of the people under this pretext. An oligarchy is no medicine for a rotting democracy. This judgment means that any Judge of the Supreme Court can strike down any amendment And does it mean that the people of India can never have a law or a system
Judicial use of political machinery to remove politics in judiciary ?
Shyam | Thu Oct 22 07:59:39 2015
With so many varied judgements between various levels, and facilitatory judgements and instant bails for the high and mighty in society, is judiciary independent of any outside influence?.with shallow views of so many chief judges of Supreme Court, there appears some concerns for common citizens of this country about the credentials and convictions of these esteemed judges to wards justice! In 68 yrs of independence, who are the politicians that convicted have been punished like that of common people who would have done similar offence? Rejecting NJAC IS not preservation of independence of judiciary but preservation of unaccountability of judiciary. NJAC is not politicising judiciary, but is judicial use of political machinery to remove politics in judicial machinery! instead of being paranoid about political biased decision in appointment, why not see it as that which removes the individual biasedness of judiciary and gives it an openness and thereby confidence to its citizens!? Otherwise what is the safeguard of a closed system if one rotten and corrupt Or the one with a political or other ideology or the one who has some ego or jealousy like common problems with colleagues or the one unconcerned reigns the top post of a judiciary? Isn't judiciary a failure in our country when there is escalating crime and disharmony in the society? What did those esteemed judges suggest as alternate to NJAC after conceding that there should be need to correct the system?
NJAC debate
Sailesh Choudhari | Thu Oct 22 07:52:58 2015
The constitution of India clearly created three pillars of democracy - The Legislature, The Executive and The Judiciary.
It wanted them to function independently and keep each other in check to ensure a proper balance.
From that perspective, the decision of Supreme court is not in-correct provided in NJAC, the non-judicial members had veto powers in the proposed NJAC.
It is definitely noteworthy that over a period of time, the interference of Legislature has increased in the Executive appointment making them toothless in terms of independence.
Judiciary was not wrong in barring MP's and MLA's from contesting elections as why a person contesting elections any different from a person casting a vote?
But judiciary needs to pull up its socks as it can be clearly seen that Judges basically came from the Lawyer fraternity and one can clearly see the nexus of the Lawyer and the judicial fraternity in delaying cases after cases, IN ORDER TO MAKE MONEY out of hapless litigants.
Judiciary, in order to prove its credentials has to pull up its socks and clear the backlog of cases and ensure that justice is delivered in time as Justice delayed is justice denied.
Both the legislature and the judiciary should be more concerned about providing timely justice.
Finally and foremost, corruption runs in our blood, WILL PEOPLE CHANGE THEMSELVES?
NJAC debate
RM Parmar | Thu Oct 22 07:08:00 2015
The subject is very complicated by nature. But according to my view judges are not given to full authority over selection of the chief. Judges no doubt are the very learned and intelligent lot of the society, but after all they are human being and they possesses all the like or dislike attitude as the common man have from which root they are coming. from various important judgement some time it seen the justice has not been done. There may be pressure from any corner from the walk of life. and so I am of the view that let some elected persons are in the committee to give voice of the common man in the selection procedure so that the particular person who came from particular base or have any bias attitude can be checked.
NJAC
Franco | Thu Oct 22 07:04:42 2015
In my view we should follow the USA system
of appointing the Judges. The US president suggest the names and then it should go through the senate for approval.
But in the past President Roosevelt and Regan tried to amend it but its was not approved by the Senate. thanks
POLITICAL INTERFERENCE
PANKAJ | Thu Oct 22 06:37:15 2015
YES, I AGREE THAT POLITICIANS SHOULD BE AWAY FROM THE APPOINTMENTS OF JUDGES, BUT ONE PUBLIC COMMISSION TYPE SYSTEM SHOULD BE EXIST TO APPOINTMENT, BECAUSE NOW JUDGES ARE ALSO CORRUPT.
NJAC debate: Political say in judges' appointment
R Kannan | Thu Oct 22 06:23:47 2015
All our MPs have UNANIMOUSLY voted only for a few things in our Parliament. One for increasing their perks and privileges (without any justification) and to bring in the politicians in the appointment of Judges.
Even in cases like GST etc, the political parties toe their party line IRRESPECTIVE OF THE GOOD/VITAL ISSUES to the country or common man. HENCE THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IS CORRECT AND NECESSARY, to escape from the corruption and evils of the Political system.
While there are issues in the present system and the accountability of judges, THE PRESENT JUDGEMENT IS BETTER OF THE EVILS. We will be worse off, to give the power to the politicians to intervene. We cannot trust our politicians. They will do anything for their personal benefit. If your present problems are 20%, the NJAC will have 80% problems.
In most of our recent cases, 2G, Coal Scam, Money in Swiss Bank, it is the Supreme Court which has given us some moral values and forced the political class to accountability. LONG LIVE THE JUDICIARY WITH INDEPENDENT POWERS.
NJAC Govt Role
Bala Brahmam Panuganti | Thu Oct 22 05:23:06 2015
Govt represents the majority wish to develop and live happily.
Indian Judiciary has failed as the judgements are delayed. The current system has judges who are based on traditional/ possible biased appointments of some one of their own cast/ region/ language or be under threat from antisocial/ criminal gangs etc.
The representation of govt on these panels will help in detecting appointments under pressure, will enhance the process of delivering justice in time, will have a development agenda for judiciary.
India must follow the examples of advanced countries not that of poor and begging countries. The culture of domination on one side and begging on the other side has to go.
The old panchayath was run by strong armed people in the villages.The delivered unwritten/ illegal judgements. The same can happen if the democracy has no say in the selection of judges. There are several bad laws in India that protect illegal occupiers of govt and public property, which is not allowed in advanced countries. India needs updating its justice system to adopt international justice system of advanced countries.
NJAC
Raj Bhatia | Thu Oct 22 05:11:04 2015
There are two issues involved in this. First politicians involvement in appointing judges. I fully agree with the judgement that politicians should not have say, specially knowing how corrupt and poor standard of our politicians are. At the same time there must be some control over judges as well. Therefore, I suggest that the present system of selection by judges should continue, except that two eminent persons should be appointed by the President. Also President should have veto power in appointment of judges.
NJAC Debate
Thavasi Kurumba Periyakarupputhevar Asokan | Thu Oct 22 05:02:59 2015
WE SHOULD PROVIDE 100% INDEPENDENCE TO AN ORGANISATION IN INDIA.
IF ANY JUDICIAL INTERACTION THROUGH INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CHANGE ONLY.
OR OTHERWISE IT IS TO BE WITH IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION LAW ONLY.
NO ANY OTHER WAY.
NJAC Debate
Ghanshyam | Thu Oct 22 04:48:06 2015
Throughout the world wherever the Judiciary have some reputation of Independence, have been targeted by corrupt politicians and institutions to manipulate control over judiciary either directly or indirectly, but frustrated because of resistance vigilant public, moral institutions and active media.
NJAC debate
Narendra Singh Parihar | Thu Oct 22 04:26:03 2015
Sir, Chief justice of SC is already in the selection panel with Union Law Minister so there should be no question to include other parliament members for selection of Judges.I feel Judiciary should not be in the hands of Politicians. We should think of future consequences, however, PM of India may be included in selection panel.
SC IS VERY CORRECT
JENSON | Thu Oct 22 04:18:35 2015
PARLIAMENT MEMBERS ARE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES BUT ARE NOT EDUCATED OR COMPETENT IN THE MATTER OF LAW. FOR EXAMPLE OUR PM WAS A TEA VENDOR AND NOW HE IS HAVING A LUXURIOUS LIFE - HOW CAN WE EXPECT HIM TO BE FAITHFUL WITH THE JUDICIARY SYSTEM - HIS SILENCE ON VARIOUS BURNING ISSUES IN THE COUNTRY CLEARLY SHOWS HIS ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE POLICIES OF FUTURE - HENCE A TEAM COMPRISING OF PRESIDENT (IMPARTIAL)& SENIOR JUDGES AMONGST THEMSELVES SHOULD DISCUSS AND ELECT WITH JUSTIFICATION.
Political say in judges' appointment
Arvind Kumar | Thu Oct 22 04:17:35 2015
Old Collegium system is the best way to appoint the Judges.If any discrepancy in system, that can be solved, but giving power to politicians is risky and add to political dictatorship.
Who does not know that for their better, politicians raise their salary and rest of the public, it is either salaried or non, bear the brunt of market dearness.They make policies to loot the public, in direct/indirect way.Collect taxes to accommodate personal property. These politicians are very.......Democracy is not safe in the hands of Politicians. Courts should be given the power of review all the decisions of Politicians and Bureaucrats. A balancing power in favour of Courts is necessary.
Appointment of judges
R Boopathi | Thu Oct 22 03:56:22 2015
Appointment of judges shall be based on merit. Why not chief judges be selected by intellectuals across the nation. we have educated, experienced persons in various fields. invite them by a list of professionals from law, engineering, medicine, administrations etc. we can always identify based on qualification and merit of personalities.
can we attempt like this
Njac debate
Gurpreet Sandhu | Thu Oct 22 02:08:50 2015
If judges are appointed by politician than it starts bidding for every honorable judges seat , like other scams in some year we listen about a new scam and the only hope and faith of people in judiciary will also lost.
NJAC Debate
Sudarshan Goyal | Thu Oct 22 01:15:15 2015
There should be absolutely no role of Govt or politicians in the appointment of Judges for obvious reasons as Judiciary is supposed to judge Govt's decisions. I suggest that at least two international Jurists should be included in the NJAC on the advice of the International Court of Justice.
NJAC debate
Prem Gupta | Thu Oct 22 00:28:15 2015
Politicians have lost their credibility and cant be trusted to tinker with Supreme court in any manner. Although slow judicial process is virtually allowing powerful politicians to roam freely despite serious convictions, this is still the only hope for democracy and people's rights to be protected.
NJAC-Political Appointment
Zulfi Shahpurwala | Wed Oct 21 21:01:02 2015
If Politicians demand a say in the appointment of judges then let there be an eminent person and people from the judiciary in the Cabinet. Though it sounds a bit drastic and anti democratic yet it brings equity to the judiciary versus legislative/executive debate.
NJAC debate: Political say in judges' appointment
Parsuram Pattanaik | Wed Oct 21 18:11:04 2015
I am agree with SC because politician appointed judge may be a political person.
Judgement Policy (and a note on Clean up of India )
HumanBaghaiRavary at hbr0936@yahoo.com | Wed Oct 21 17:19:07 2015
Dear Sirs
This is the space allien account for proper judjement:
All judges to pass BSc and only overview public work at random/ any sequence/ and sequentially.
All older judges of same GRADE & Quality, and next lower grade at 5 year intervals GROUP
TOGETHER, and again superior to the next Judge Group of next 5 years.
Three Laws only:
1. Law number one: No Thieving else 1st hand cut off, 2nd A foot cut off, 3rd (Beheaded) time Head cut off.
2. Law number two: No Killing: Else killed by government officers.
3. Law number three: Register any and all complaints (by mobile phone to internet site/page) for public follow up (5 ordinary persons to follow up working one day per week for the government as "national required work").
Yours sincerely
Mr.HBRavary
Also PS (note) India needs a good sewage clean up : use Radio Active Uranium for Steam Engine
electricity production . Then heat sewage to sterilize at 300 degree centigrade for two minutes,
and make into powder (with roller or metalic Large balls) and send to sea or send to any land as fertile compost. Heat by electric heater or micro-wave
at 2G45Hz normal frequency .
Uranium squares of 0.1 mm thickness on top of each other become hotter and hotter then if temperature of
330 degree centigrade for steam generation is passed then use a smaller squares on top , in other words
same size squares then smaller and smaller squares. INVITE ME TO HELP GOVERNMENT
Electricity PROJECT !
NJAC debate
Jamil Arshad | Wed Oct 21 16:55:43 2015
I too feel that politicians must not in any way play any role in appointment of the judges. I can understand why the government is so embarrassed.Instead of justifying their move they should retrospect and realize the implications of government interference in the appointments of judges. How can they be impartial. In due course the impartiality, authenticity, justice of the courts will be as tainted as some of the politicians.
NJAC
Dashrath Singh Gurdaspur | Wed Oct 21 16:52:38 2015
S C verdict absolutely correct.Parliament is not"PEOPLE". All parliamentarians are united on this issue itself proves dubious correcter. Let the issue go to people.There will hardly be a single hand to support parliamentarians view. Pparliament has no right to encroach in Judiciary.
Should Politicians have a say in NJAC
Robert | Wed Oct 21 15:14:52 2015
My answer is a simple emphatetic NO. Where ever Politicians put their hands they mess it up.There is a lot of difference between politicians of yore and now,That is why the Constitution made the Judiciary an independent body. What is happening to the CBI, It is basically a Puppet in the hands of the Politicians.Please leave the Judiciary alone. As Love my Country Just like the rest of India.
NJAC
Peresandra | Wed Oct 21 13:25:57 2015
Harish salve is right. SC is wrong.Collegium system has failed miserably.How else can you explain a high court judge who can not add.Collegium have appointed judges who are corrupt and incompetent.Our judicial system is jurassic and is not serving honest citizens.If it takes 30 to 40 years to punish a criminal, it can not be called a judicial system but a criminal protection system. only criminals enjoy 30 to 40 years of their life after committing crime.The only way out implement suggestions of eminent advocates like Harish Salve.
DEBATE ON NJAC
CA BRIJESH KR GUJRATI | Wed Oct 21 12:55:14 2015
IN MY OPINION SUPREME COURT DECISION IS CORRECT TO AWAY LAW MINISTER AND POLITICIAN FROM APPOINTMENT IMAGINE LIKE IF LAST PREDECEASED GOVT IS THERE IN FUTURE THEN CORRUPT JUDGE WILL APPOINTED , SO DECISION IS CORRECT BUT SC HAS TO DECIDE SPEED TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF CASES CORRUPT POLITICIAN AND BUREAUCRATS.
NJAC
Nikhil Bhave | Wed Oct 21 12:42:05 2015
Arguments from both sides are valid to some extent. Some accountability on part of judiciary to the people of India (maybe through parliament) is required.
Today as we see the process of justice administration is very frustrating for common man. So many pending cases,no place to have hearing about the same.
NJAC Debate
Mohit@czartalentsolutions | Wed Oct 21 12:14:23 2015
By this new bill, politicians want to enter into the judiciary as well and make them the puppet of politicians. This should not be allowed and Judiciary should be independent. However, some rules can be incorporated where corrupt judges can be held accountable and be made to pay for it.
Plitical Say in Judges' Appointments
Roger Hall (from South Africa) | Wed Oct 21 11:59:57 2015
This could be scary! Here in South Africa, the ANC are trying to do all the can to have the judiciary report effectively to the Government - the ANC. The reason? So that they can block the (presently) independent judiciary from prosecuting the corrupt ANC politicians. This must not be allowed to happen! In India, I would hope that the same "reasoning" doesn't apply. Now we don't want an Iranian style "Revolutionary Council" (what revolution?!)with Draconian unfettered powers, but allowing politicians to meddle with the judiciary is asking for trouble. What are the politicians afraid of? If they are not themselves corrupt, then surely there is nothing to fear.
SC verdict correct
Swamynarayana | Wed Oct 21 11:57:47 2015
Our politicians joined hands,irrespective of party,only when it is in their interest and not that of the country.Given the corrupt and criminal history of most of our politicians, the verdict is correct.But judiciary also needs accountability and hands of all judges are also not clean.Corruption in judiciary also needs to be put in its bay.
NJAC
C V RAJU | Wed Oct 21 11:50:58 2015
Having a balanced system for appointment of judges would not hurt the system. One cannot make general and sweeping statements that politicians are corrupt. Making a transparent system with a balance of executive and judiciary would help the judicial system which seems in a mess today with the backlog of cases and no solution in sight. Of the judges by the judges and for the judges would tend to limit "thinking out of the box" which is the need of the hour.
NJAC
C.Sambasivam | Wed Oct 21 11:17:28 2015
It is crystal clear that the proposed NJAC is to muffle the voice of the judiciary by the NPA bureaucracy. By appointing the judges of their choice,justice can be BOUGHT in crucial issues.
NJAC
JCB | Wed Oct 21 09:52:00 2015
I understand that present collegium system is just 23years old where as our costitution is more than 6 decade old. Before going in controversy it will be of importance to know what was the original status and the amendments made in it from time to time. What led to formation of current collegium?
Political interference in judiciary
Praveen sinha | Wed Oct 21 09:22:25 2015
Its s real shame that political parties are using the will of the people. To subvert independence of the judiciary.
It will be sad day for democratic India if judiciary looses its independence and becomes answerable to the politicians.
In fact this amendment being sought by the bjp with due support of all the other political parties is a typical example of you scratch my back I will scratch your back.
These parties have only motive and that is the protection of their corruption. They are unable to come to any consensus on issues of national interest. But for controlling judiciary all joined hands.
Mr jaitley talks about judicial tyranny but what executive tyranny. Why doesn't he come out of his ac room ask the masses what they want. Go in for public voting and u will get your answer.
We as the people of India have suffered and humiliation in daily walks of life from these executive VVIPs. They have flaunted their powers as if they are kings and we are slaves.
Moreover name one institution under political control functioning in both better condition then the judiciary.
Today we the people of India feel protected only because of the judiciary. If judiciary looses its independence, people will loose complete faith I'm the establishment and when such a thing happens catastrophe takes place.
So please do not try to manipulate the only institution which still have the public's trust.
So please do not politicise judiciary
NJAC Debate
S K Agrawal | Wed Oct 21 08:28:17 2015
What is the definition of eminent persons?
I am sure that as the time goes , system will deteriorate and non-eminent persons in place of eminent persons will be appointed.
They will select judges not on merit but on other considerations. Appointment of Mr Gajendra Chauhan is prominent example of skewed selection in key position and is likely to be replicated everywhere. In short every person with RSS background is eminent person
No Obligation
S.P.Mishra | Wed Oct 21 07:56:13 2015
By entry of political people in the appointment of Judges,the obligation will be created on them,due to which, they will not be able to discharge their duties diligently.Political people themselves are not transparent, hence they can not expect this from others.Elected people are supposed to rule the country, but this is not so as far as judiciary is concerned. Hence, there should not be any say of the political people in the appointment of judges.
NJAC debate
S. Garg | Wed Oct 21 07:44:02 2015
In the present system judges are irremovable, not accountable and above criticism as criticism of verdict is considered contempt of court. In short they are super humans. Any system which makes the judges accountable to people and which makes it easier to punish corrupt judges and remove incompetent ones is always welcome. Why judges fear their annual appraisal and corrective action by some competent authority.
|
|
Re: NJAC debate
Jayati | Wed Oct 21 09:53:13 2015
Mr. Garg, your comment is good provided we can be sure that politicians can be termed as "Competent Authority". We all know that Judges put in years of reading the Law while many elected representatives of the country can hardly READ
|
|
SC verdict is correct
Ashish Raj | Wed Oct 21 07:35:56 2015
Politicians have repeatedly proved themselves corrupt. How do they expect to be trusted with appointment of judges?
Political say in judges appointment.
Naresh Kaushik | Wed Oct 21 07:31:59 2015
The Judiciary and Parliament both have different responsibilities in Indian constitution. The appointment of judges by NJAC will keep them free from the political influence. Thus the judiciary system will be able to put reign on the corrupt politicians and penalise them which is in the interest of common people. Except it, a poorest can hope to get justice in case the judiciary system is free from influence of the parliament.
There are many laws in India which are un-justified and partial on the ground of caste, religion, minority etc. and there is no hope of their iradication till the parliament has sole authority to enact laws. So, the judiciary system should also have say in enacting laws and the parliament should have only secondary authority i.e. proposing body. The interference of Judiciary in enacting laws will weed out the political and administration evils and will put the corruption in its bay.
NJAC
sasi kumar | Wed Oct 21 07:19:08 2015
1.appointing of judiciary alone does not serve any purpose . what is required to get law and order in place ? all that needs is to be done and it is long list. 2.with swelling population and poverty pressure groups are bound to increase , governance becomes almost absent . recent incidents are examples
3. we need to learn from the west - how come they have no scams , no match fixing , money laundering etc ?
4. just addressing any one issue does not take us any where
NJAC DEBATE -POLITICAL SAY IN APPPOINTMENT OF JUDGES
Bikram Singh | Wed Oct 21 07:13:53 2015
The things are deliberately quoted in wrong context. Why politicians want a say in appointment of judges ?? The reason is obvious and need not explain...even a layman can explain the logic.
The independence of judiciary is must and it should work without any fear and interference. Even the investigation agencies should not be under executive.
The case of CBI is a perfect example of bringing investigation agencies under politicians. They will deal same blow to judicial system also in similar way.
NJAC
Srivarma Shetty. | Wed Oct 21 07:02:02 2015
I feel the current system should continue with probably more transparency & clearer guidelines for selection, if required. In recent times, we have seen all major multi crore scandals are connected with politicians from different political parties. Having political say in appointment of judges may not ensure selection of judges with no affiliation to political parties/ politicians.
Moreover, need of the hour is, expediting pending cases rotting in courts for years. We may have to have more courts, more judges, bigger court complexes, lesser court holidays, longer working hour (or courts functioning in shifts) to ensure that the cases are tried in timely manner. Spurt in all types of crimes in recent times is a direct result of delays in court trials & hence delayed convictions. No one is worried about the punishment.
Political say in Judges appointment
R.M.K.Mohan | Wed Oct 21 06:56:55 2015
In our democratic country because of the political involvement, we are experiencing many areas are affected. Because of this the system is getting spoiled. If political power encroach the judicial system also the little control what ever is there will be lost and it may leads to disastrous situation to the country.
Sc verdict on NJAC is correct.
Nandlal Kumar | Wed Oct 21 06:35:13 2015
Sc verdict on NJAC is correct. The political interference should not be there in the judges appointment.
Who has a Say
R P Roy | Wed Oct 21 06:29:13 2015
If Parliamentarians can on their own decide their salaries, then why can the judges not appoint the best among them to be in the Supreme Court.
NJAC debate: Political say in judges' appointment
Jayati | Wed Oct 21 06:05:00 2015
The Constitution framed by the founding fathers most certainly wanted the Judiciary to be independent of the Government, to be a parallel pillar to uphold the country's governance. The Judiciary is meant to keep a check on the government functioning in the best interest of the public and avoid political parties from running the govt with their own whims & fancies. The candidates who contest elections need not have any educational qualification, but the judiciary is highly learned & well versed in the Laws of the land. This is the most highly respected pillar only because of this. The Judiciary can accept PIL which are generally a tool used by the Public to voice their grievances against the Govt bodies. Obviously the elected representatives do not like this and hence want to have a say in their appointments & transfers like the Police so that they can be removed when inconvenient. This is NOT what the Public wants & certainly cannot be termed Democratic. There are enough areas where the Govt needs to act (and FAST) rather than poke their noses into areas which are not in the public interest but only in their own interest. Obviously all parties will favour such moves, like they all voted to increase their own allowances etc for which there is 100% concensus across party lines. This cannot be construed as the will of the people. They should focus on fulfilling the pre-election promises rather than rake up non-issues after getting elected. This is NOT what we Elected them for.
njac
madhu | Wed Oct 21 05:34:50 2015
Even the judiciary should be accountable, time bound, and transparent. Why they should be different. This sort of attitude by the judiciary will disturb the balance.
|
|
Re: njac
Jayati | Wed Oct 21 09:59:18 2015
No doubt justice should be done in a timely manner. But we see in reality that most criminals are powerful because the have/find some connection with politicians. They go on to engage very skilled lawyers to prolong the cases which they cannot win while they enjoy life out on bail, while the poor victims suffer. Imagine what would happen if the Judges too feared their promotion/transfer at the hands of the same politicians !
|
|
NJAC Debate
RAJESH kUMAR | Wed Oct 21 05:30:21 2015
It is a warning to people of India that whenever politician with lot of party differences suddenly unite unanimously like on the issue of increase in salaries, in perks, in other facilities even at low price but very high quality food at parliament canteen, it reflects narrow mindedness and selfish character of our so called politicians.
Now politicians wish to control Judiciary system like they have a hold on CBI, It proves and establishes a fact that earn money while in politics and let judicial system play on their fingers so that they may be given a clean chit always, However one more thing is very interesting no politicians have been hanged or life time jailed, this is happening when judiciary is independent or said to be independent, what will happen if this column of democracy fall under the control of leaders and politicians.
|
|
Re: NJAC Debate
Appan Menon | Thu Oct 22 07:23:08 2015
If the politicians are not behaving, it is for you and me to make them behave. We cannot outsource our right to a coterie of judges who are responsible to none. An oligarchy is no medicine for a rotting democracy.
|
|
Reg NJAC
S MAHABOOB BASHA | Wed Oct 21 05:21:44 2015
The verdict of SC is correct, Judiciary should not be in the hands of Politicians. We should think of future consequences, as our all Political leaders are not Educated. This need to be bring changes from root level. That is implement minimum qualification for MP,s & MLA.s etc.
|
|
Re: Reg NJAC
Appan Menon | Thu Oct 22 07:25:35 2015
Remember, the politicians are from us, but the judges are not. We can change the politicians but not the judges.
|
|
views on NJAC act
Anthony | Wed Oct 21 04:37:17 2015
The one institution that the people of the world have to be wary of the is executive, be that it may be elected. Politicians and Governments like to get and retain power at any cost and experience has taught the world that elected governments are not gentlemen. It is for this reason that the independence of the judiciary is paramount. A govt that has a majority can alter the constitution and make laws that can give it unbridled powers and tenure. The judiciary is supposed to protect citizens from this tyranny should it be attempted to be perpetuated. The fact is that the judiciary may be corrupt but to say that they would let down the country on the basic structure of the constitution and fundamental rights is too far fetched to believe.
The issue in this case is that the question is the NJAC could be implemented and it would not have reduced the say of the Judiciary in the appointment of judges as they would have had a minimum majority of 3 members from their community. But the Act says that if there is dissent of two members the member could not be selected. Thus for any appointment you would need a majority of five members. A difficult condition to achieve. This provision is in the ACT and it could be at any time without great difficulty be amended to read that if the Law minister one of the members disagrees the selection could be not be done or something even more sinister etc. The fundamental points of the appointment should have been made in the Constitution.
NJAC debate: Political say in judges' appointment
Prasad N Hiremath | Wed Oct 21 04:34:29 2015
Politicians need NOT be everywhere. Let the non-political system also exist. politicians unashamedly want to have a say in everything in India. They need no do so, in the interest of society.
In Karnataka also, politicians want to have a membership in non-political private clubs, as a LAW ! Is this not an infringement on the liberty of private clubs ?
Once they get it, they start throwing their political / muscle clout everywhere, thus spoiling the environment.
I am strongly AGAINST politicians in the appointment of judges.
|
|
Re: NJAC debate: Political say in judges' appointment
A V Chandran | Thu Oct 22 04:42:31 2015
Politics and Legislation are closely related to judiciary and executive as all initiatives are being taken place from the floor of Parliament with reference to amendment process of Constitution.In terms of Indian Constitution all amendment process could be resolved by Parliament whereas such resolution could be examined, reviewed and resolved in terms of judicial process of Constitution Bench of Apex Court before finally approving the President of India so that it could have a smooth passage.
|
|
NJAC
Prem | Wed Oct 21 04:31:40 2015
Its fashionable to lambast politicians but they spring from people and are reflection of the collective quality of the people they represent. Judges are no holy cows and a proper system of checks and balances demands that their own appointment should never be left to them alone. Going by the principle of fallibility of the Parliament, armed forces should be left to choose their own bosses and so on. The present system of collegium is opaque, self serving and almost like the behaviour of a cult or cabal. Concept of NJAC is progressive and constitutional, system of collegium is retrograde and also unconstitutional. The Supreme Court pronouncing a judgment concerning its own judges carries a conflict of interest and should not have been taken up in the first place.
Murugan | Wed Oct 21 04:27:06 2015
Apportionment of High Court or Supreme Court Judges should follow the following points
1. He is Advocate to appear for correct person
2. Whether selected from the lower level judges should not commit against our country i.e corruption, Judgement decision, to follow the correct and actual discrepancy to come forward
3.
all judges should fever only to country not politician
4. Any judges giving wrong order who should dismissed immediately
5. Judges should think any activity should not against our country.
Political say on Judge appointment.
Dr. Brajen Singh, MVSc, PhD | Wed Oct 21 03:38:11 2015
Politics and justice be two different institutes in India. Politicians wants justice in their favor to seal their cracks. Is there any politicians free of greed - first personal financial and power. Let justice deliver justice. No more politics please.
APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES
JAMES JOSEPH, KERALA | Wed Oct 21 03:28:41 2015
NEVER PERMIT POLITICIANS A UPPER HAND IN APPOINTING JUDGES IN ANY OF THE COURTS IN INDIA. NOW ITSELF GENERAL PUBLIC IS REALLY FRUSTRATED IN POLITICS. POLITICIANS, AS RIGHTLY SAID BY R.K.LAKSHMAN; ARE ONE WHO GETS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION (AND CRORES OF MONEY)FROM THE RICH AND VOTES FROM THE POOR.
|
|
Re: APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES
D V V Satyanarayana | Wed Oct 21 12:03:15 2015
Judges should not come under the influence of politicians. there shold be a separate selection committee like UPSC. If any judge is proved corrupt he must be sent to jail. The judiciary system should be independent. In which way it bothers the politicians I don't understand . May be due to the corruption . They can use the judges to get away from their corruption cases etc. To have Swach Bharat this should be dealt with . I don't think in U .S.A. the judges are at the top rank as far as independency is concerned . They are not afraid of even the president of U.S.A. There should be no reservations at least in selection of judges . Pure merit candidates only should be selected as judges. The convenor of Lok Satta party , Shri Jaya Prakash Narayan has been saying since a long time that the selection of judges should be separated from politicians grip and it should be similar to U.P.S.C. system. Altogether ,to say is politicians' interference should be completely avoided. .
|
|
|
|
Re: APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES
A V Chandran | Thu Oct 22 04:44:13 2015
In terms of Indian Constitution all amendment process could be resolved by Parliament whereas such resolution could be examined, reviewed and resolved in terms of judicial process of Constitution Bench of Apex Court before finally approving the President of India so that it could have a smooth passage.
|
|
|
|
Re: APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES
sk bansal | Thu Oct 22 08:33:17 2015
The congress get their person appointed through judges. So congress like this existing system. The judged themselves accepted this existing system need modified. who will modify. Judges has no authority to do so. Only parliament has the power to amend the existing system. Now judged has to approach for it. where these judges stand for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Customs Exchange Rates |
| Currency |
Import |
Export |
US Dollar
|
66.20
|
64.50 |
UK Pound
|
87.50
|
84.65 |
Euro
|
78.25
|
75.65 |
| Japanese
Yen |
58.85 |
56.85 |
| As on 13 Aug, 2022 |
|
|
| Daily Poll |
 |
 |
| PM Modi's recent US visit to redefine India-US bilateral relations |
|
|
|
|
|
| Commented Stories |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
