HC to decide if gram panchayat members can continue in Manipur post tenure: SC
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday said the high court would decide whether the elected gram panchayat members, whose five-year tenure was over in Manipur, were entitled to continue in their posts in the event of the appointment of an administrative committee or an administrator.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said it would like to have the benefit of the view of the high court in the matter and set a three-month time frame to adjudicate the legal question.
"The question that falls for consideration in this case is that whether the elected member of the Gram Panchayat whose five-year tenure is over was entitled to continue as members of the gram panchayat in the event of appointment of administrative committee or administrator, as contemplated under Section 22 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act of 1994," the bench noted.
The Manipur government’s counsel said the state could not hold panchayat elections due to the unprecedented violence.
"Since, we would like to have the advantage of the opinion of the high court, we dispose of the special leave petition without expressing any opinion on merits, with the request to the chief justice of Manipur High Court to post the main case before a division bench at the earliest. We further request the division bench, before whom the matter is listed, to provide expeditious hearing with an endeavour to resolve the controversy within three months," the bench said.
The bench noted that provision of Manipur Panchayati Raj Act was amended to substitute the word "cease" with the word "continue" with respect to the tenure of the elected members of the gram panchayat.
The petitioners have challenged a high court order and submitted that since elections in gram panchayat could not be held in Manipur for various reasons, the previously elected members of the panchayat were entitled to continue as per the amended Section 22 (3) of 1994 Act.
Section 22 deals with the power of deputy commissioner to appoint an administrative committee or an administrator for a period of six months, which will then oversee the election.
Section 22 (3) of the law says once the administrative committee or an administrator is appointed by the deputy commissioner, the elected members of earlier gram panchayat shall cease to exist.
The top court said what has been challenged before it was an interlocutory order of the high court and the main petition in which the question of law that had been raised was still pending.
The original petitioners before the high court were elected representatives at the fifth general elections for gram panchayats and the zilla parishads who sought a direction to continue in the office beyond the period of five years as stipulated by law as elections were last held in 2017.
They sought to continue as panchayat members till the time the state election commission notified the election for the sixth general elections for gram panchayats and zilla parishads.
On February 29, last year, the high court in its interim order gave liberty to Manipur government to appoint an administrative committee for each gram panchayat and zilla parishad in accordance with law and the provision of the Act.
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.
BCI urges CJI to take action against Andhra HC judge for sending young lawyer to 24-hour custody
New Delhi (PTI): The Bar Council of India on Wednesday sought the urgent intervention of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant following a "deeply disturbing" incident where a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reportedly sent a young advocate to
24-hour judicial custody over a procedural lapse.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairperson and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, in a formal representation, termed the conduct of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao "grossly inappropriate" and "damaging to the confidence of the Bar".
“I most respectfully request your Lordship to kindly take immediate institutional cognizance of the matter and call for the video recording of the proceedings, the order passed, and the surrounding circumstances.
“I further request that appropriate administrative action may kindly be considered, including withdrawal of judicial work from the learned Judge pending review, his immediate transfer to some far off High Court, and his nomination for appropriate judicial training/orientation on court management, judicial temperament, Bar-Bench relations, and proportional exercise of contempt/judicial authority,” Mishra wrote.
This representation is made to preserve the “dignity, moral authority and public confidence of the judiciary”, he said, adding, “Judges command the highest respect not by fear, but by fairness, patience, restraint and constitutional humility”.
The communication urged the CJI to intervene at the earliest to ensure that the faith of Bar, particularly young advocates, in the protective and corrective role of the judiciary is restored.
The controversy stems from proceedings on May 5.
According to the BCI, a video circulating online shows Justice Rao rebuking a young advocate who was unable to produce a specific order copy during a hearing.
The letter said that despite the advocate "repeatedly seeking pardon and mercy" and claiming he was in physical pain, the judge remained "unmoved".
The judge allegedly told the lawyer, "now you will learn," and mocked his experience before directing the Registrar and police personnel to take him into custody for 24 hours.
The BCI chairperson said that the judge’s actions lacked proportionality and fairness.
"The dignity of the court is not enhanced when a lawyer is made to beg for grace in open court and is still sent to custody for a procedural lapse," the letter said.
"A young lawyer... is an officer of the Court, still learning, still growing, and entitled to correction without humiliation," it added.
The bar body said that such actions create a "chilling effect" on the legal fraternity, particularly among junior members, and undermine the mutual respect required between the Bench and the Bar.
