Loss of face for central goverment
There has been a constant attack on constitutional organisations ever since Modi’s BJP government assumed power at the centre. Autonomous institutions have been meddled with constantly, pushing envelope to use them to settle vendettas and equations with the political opponents. One of the major examples of this lies in the fact that CBI chief Alok Kumar Verma was sent on compulsory leave in the recent times. Verma had moved courts questioning the decision of the goverment on the leave issue. Supreme Court took up the matter for hearing and has given a dressing down to the government, stating the leave stands cancelled and Verma should return to office. But he has been barred from taking any policy related issues, till the CVC investigation is complete.
Central government was never humiliated like this. Alok Kumar Verma’s tenure would end on January 31. He was sent on compulsory leave, forcibly in October. This is a classic case of government interference over everything else. Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction over such highhandedness on part of the government.
Right from the beginning, the autonomy of CBI has always been under a scanner because it’s autonomy seems more like tokenism than genuine. All the political parties that have been in power have been using CBI in some way or the other to settle scores with their political opponents. But the midnight operation and sending Verma on leave was a direct attack launched on the CBI. Supreme Court has reinstated Verma, clearly ignoring the reasoning provided by the government that the action was initiated based on the Central Vigilence Committee Commissioner’s report.
PM, Chief Justice of Supreme Court and leaders of opposition will sit together to decide about the future of CBI chief. The decision by the Supreme Court will have its impact on CBI even after Verma’s retirement by the end of the month. The governemnt cannot really take a unilateral adhoc decision regarding the next appointee as CBI director. The argument made by Fali S Nariman, representing Verma is that the director has two year service tenure and the decision made by the govetnment is ntohing but interference.
Central government had appointed Verma as CBI chief in 2017. Then he was sent on leave all of a sudden. Is there any truth in the allegations made by the opposition that Verma was going into the files and details of the Rafael deal made by the central government which caused him to be shunted out? Why was Asthana, who is considered a Modi aide, appointed as the director of CBI in the same month?
After Asthana’s appoinment, CBI turned into a warzone of internal bickerings. The central goverment is solely responsible for this. This brought out the fights into open space and ruined the confidence it enjoyed among people, thanks to Modi government. When Verma had travelled aborad, Asthana had attended a meeting on promotions for staff called by the CVC. Verma was livid when he heard that Asthana attended the meeting on his behalf, stating he had not designated anyone as acting chief. This brought out the differences of opinion among both seniors in CBI and both then lodged complaints citing corrpuption charges. The centre then woke up and sent both of them on leave and appointed Nageswara Rao as the acting chief. The centra government did not check with highpower committee for any suggestions. Advocate Prashanth Bhushan and others had submitted a plea to CBI seeking inquiry into Rafeal deal, that seems to be surrounding Modi at the moment. Based on this complaint, Verma had colletced a few details for further investination. Hence one version says this caused Modi goverment to train their guns on Verma and send him on leave. This is not totally far from the truth either. Central goverment got into a quick sand trying to protect Modi. This is a warning bell for the future goverments as well.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bengaluru (PTI): Justice B V Nagarathna of the Supreme Court on Saturday called for the creation of a judicial reforms commission to reduce mounting pendency in the courts, saying systemic incentives across stakeholders were contributing to delays in justice delivery.
She was speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) first National Conference on the theme "Reimagining judicial governance: strengthening institutions for democratic justice" here.
Nagarathna, who was part of the panel session addressing "From Pendency to Prompt Justice: Rethinking Justice Delivery in Indian Courts," said, this reforms commission must have membership not only from the judiciary of the Supreme Court, the High Court, as well as the District judiciary, but also have members from the Bar, Attorney General, Solicitor General, and also certain members representing the Bar at the institutional level, such as the Bar President, and from the government side to enable an inter-institutional dialogue on reducing pendency.
She reflected that, from the point of view of various stakeholders, a litigant gains from the status quo, to proceed to prolong proceedings.
ALSO READ: A political legacy, but no win yet: Padmaja Venugopal''s new fight in Thrissur
"A lawyer or an advocate loves adjournments and postponement because he/she benefits from per appearance and extended timelines. A government department reduces bureaucratic risk by appealing rather than accepting defeat.
"A judge, and particularly a trial judge, is always acting with caution because he/she is confronted with appellate reversal, and therefore he/she prefers procedural caution rather than having an aggressive docket control. Each of these decisions is individually rational, but how does it help the system? It is only leading to systemic delay," she added.
In order to break this equilibrium, Justice Nagarathna said that what is required is institutional interventions through a judicial commission to reduce pendency, rather than merely exhorting better conduct from judges, adherence to procedural timelines, asking advocates not to seek adjournments, urging the government to reduce litigation, or expecting courts to function round the clock and judges not to take leave.
On pendency, the judge questioned the inclusion of defective filings in court statistics, suggesting that such cases should not be counted until they are procedurally ready for hearing.
She also underlined the role of the government as the "largest generator of litigation", noting that officials tend to file appeals to avoid scrutiny, even in cases where disputes could be settled earlier. This, she said, results in cases travelling through multiple judicial levels unnecessarily.
"The government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog, while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation," she observed.
Justice Nagarathna further claimed judicial capacity is constrained by inadequate public investment, including delays in appointment of judges, lack of infrastructure and insufficient use of technology.
Among the measures suggested, she called for improved case management, curbs on unnecessary adjournments, adoption of technology, prioritisation of cases, promotion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and creation of specialised benches.
She also urged advocates to adhere to professional and ethical standards, litigants to avoid frivolous appeals, and the government to adopt a practical litigation policy and ensure timely funding and appointments in the judiciary.
