Bombay HC dismisses PIL seeking action against Vice President Dhankhar and Union Law Minister Rijiju
Mumbai (PTI): The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation filed against Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju and Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar for their remarks on judiciary and the collegium system for appointment of judges.
The plea filed by Bombay Lawyers Association had claimed Rijiju and Dhankhar showed lack of faith in the Constitution with their remarks and conduct. It had sought for orders to restrain Dhankhar from discharging duty as the vice president, and Rijiju from discharging duty as cabinet minister for the central government.
The PIL claimed the "frontal attack not just on the judiciary but the Constitution" by the two executive officials has lowered the prestige of the Supreme Court in public.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice S V Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne briefly heard the petitioner's lawyer, Ahmed Abdi, and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh for the respondents.
"We are not inclined to grant any relief. The petition is dismissed. Reasons would be recorded later," the court said.
While Abdi argued that Dhankhar and Rijiju had lowered the reputation of the judiciary with their remarks, ASG Singh said the plea was frivolous and a publicity stunt.
Singh said the respondents (Dhankhar and Rijiju) respect the Constitution of India which is the supreme and there was no question of them attacking the Constitution.
"The petition is frivolous, a waste of the court's time and nothing but a publicity stunt. Exemplary cost should be imposed," Singh said.
Abdi argued that Dhankhar and Rijiju are constitutionaries and hence should abstain from making such remarks.
"We are not against debate and criticism but it should be held in Parliament and not in such public domain. This is lowering the judiciary's reputation and image and affecting the faith people have in judiciary," Abdi said.
This was a very dangerous trend that would ultimately lead to anarchy, he claimed.
"Respondent 1 (Dhankhar) and Respondent 2 (Rijiju) as constitutional functionaries are supposed to have faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India," the PIL had said.
"The Vice President and the Law Minister are attacking the collegium system as well as the doctrine of basic structure openly in a public platform. This kind of unbecoming behaviour by respondents who are holding constitutional posts is lowering the majesty of the Supreme Court in the eyes of the public at large," claimed the petition, filed through advocate Eknath Dhokale.
Rijiju recently said the collegium system of appointing judges was "opaque and not transparent".
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar had questioned the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case verdict that gave the basic structure doctrine.
Dhankhar had said the verdict set a bad precedent and if any authority questions Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, it would be difficult to say "we are a democratic nation".
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.
K’taka HC judge whose controversial remarks triggered controversy expresses regret before open court
Bengaluru: Karnataka High Court judge, Justice V Srishananda, on Saturday expressed regret in open court after facing backlash over his controversial remarks in his recent court hearings, reported Bar and Bench.
Two purported video clips from Justice V Srishananda’s court hearing that show him making inappropriate comments went viral across social media platforms.
On Saturday, Justice Srishananda invited members of the Advocates Association, Bengaluru, and senior lawyers to his courtroom at 2:30 PM, where he read out a note expressing regret for inappropriate comments.
Quoting Advocates Association President Vivek Subba Reddy, Bar and Bench wrote, “He expressed regret for the comments and clarified that it was not his intention to offend any community or members of the Bar. He also requested the association to relay this message to all members of the Bar.”
Reddy further stated, “We also advised him to encourage young lawyers in the courtroom and refrain from making any irrelevant remarks during hearings.”
Another senior lawyer present during the session confirmed to the legal news portal that Justice Srishananda also addressed comments directed at a woman lawyer, who was seen in one of the videos being reprimanded by the judge. The judge Justice Srishananda clarified that his remarks were not intended to target her (woman lawyer) specifically, but rather pertained to the appellant she was representing. “He explained that his comment was meant to imply that the appellant seemed to know a lot about the other party,” said the lawyer.
In addition, Justice Srishananda assured those present that he would avoid making such comments in the future.
The controversy came to light on September 19, when a video clip from an August 28 Court hearing surfaced on social media, showing Justice Srishananda referring to a Muslim-majority sub-locality in Bengaluru’s Goripalya as "Pakistan." Hours later, another video from the same courtroom emerged, in which the judge was seen making a gender-insensitive remark.
Following outrage over the viral videos, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, on September 20 took a suo motu cognizance and sought a report from the Karnataka High Court Registrar General in connection with the viral video.
