Justice Gogoi rejects fixed tenure for CJIs, seeks consistent judicial policy
New Delhi, July 28 : Justice Ranjan Gogoi - the seniormost judge of the top court after Chief Justice Dipak Misra - on Saturday dismissed the suggestion for fixed tenure of the Chief Justice of India so as to give them enough time to push the reforms in the judicial system.
Addressing the issue of fixed term, he said that in judiciary when it comes to elevation of judges, there are some norms, particularly seniority and it may not be a good idea to deny a person the chance of becoming CJI merely because his tenure would be short.
The problem in pushing reforms is not with the length of the tenure as CJI - whether short or long - but with the change in priorities with the change of CJIs, Justice Gogoi said priorities once set had to be consistently adhered to by the successive CJIs.
"Problem does not lie with the short tenure. Problem lies with the change of priority with the change of Chief Justice. We must have consistent policy. Tenure does not matter," he said, responding to the suggestion of fixed tenure for the CJIs by Prof N.R.Madhava Menon - former Vice Cancellor of National Law School of India, Bengaluru.
Citing the fixed tenure of the Cabinet Secretary, service and police chiefs, Menon advocated a fixed tenure of CJIs, wondering what would happen to the defence of the country if service chiefs were to have short tenures running into a few months.
Addressing the number of issues that emerged during day long deliberation on "National Initiative to Reduce Pendency and Delay in Judicial System", Justice Gogoi said there "was no radical solution of the problem of the huge backlog of over three crore cases. They will not disappear overnight".
It is a "gradual process with a multi-pronged approach and acting immediately on the solutions that have emerged in the daylong deliberations", he said, apparently urging the High Court judges and judicial officers to get on with the task.
Addressing the issue of vacancies, Justice Gogoi said that the vacancies in the High Courts can be taken care of by the CJI and his team but the cause of concern was 5,984 vacancies in lower judiciary with Uttar Pradesh with 1,344, Bihar with 825 and Madhya Pradesh with 748 vacancies topping the list.
Pointing to the long time that is taken in the recruitment of judicial officers in different states, and urging to look at the issue with a different perspective, he said: "What we are looking for is that a man or a woman has outstanding merit and ability, utmost integrity and of absolute commitment to work. Three qualities I would look for before a person becomes a judge."
Referring to the report of a committee that had said that the entire process for the recruitment of judges in lower judiciary should be completed in 273 days, Justice Gogoi said that Delhi took 762 days, J&K took 900 days and Pondicherry did it in 99 days.
It can happen in 99 days, and "If you have a right man at right place (then) rest will follow", he said.
In his valedictory address, Chief Justice Misra, summing up the daylong proceedings, called for "self-discipline", "self enhancement" and "developing a culture of work atmosphere".
Not favouring ex-parte stay of the proceedings of the trials at lower courts, he said that they should be a "dated stay".
Saying that standing still was "negation of life", Chief Justice Misra said that the courts should decide the matters in a time bound manner while he drew distinction between enthusiasm, perseverance and obsession.
Dwelling on judicial statesmanship, judicial leadership and judicial discipline, he said that every case should be decided skilfully and lawfully with impose one's own views.
On judicial discipline, he said that lawyers should not be allowed to take court's time more than necessary.
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.
Supreme Court condemns 'bulldozer justice,' says executive cannot replace judiciary
Issues guidelines against demolition of properties over criminal allegations
New Delhi: In a significant judgement on Wednesday, 13 November, the Supreme Court emphasised that properties cannot be demolished solely based on criminal accusations or convictions. The Court asserted that such actions contravene the rule of law and infringe upon the principle of separation of powers, as only the judiciary has the authority to determine a person's guilt.
"The executive cannot pronounce a person guilty. If the executive demolishes the property of the person merely on the basis of accusation, it will strike at the rule of law. The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building reminds one of lawlessness, where might was right. Such high-handed and arbitrary actions have no place in a constitutional democracy. Our constitutional ethos do not permit such a course of action," the Court stated.
The judgement, delivered by a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, came in response to a series of petitions, including one filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, seeking to halt the use of demolitions as a punitive measure against those accused of crimes. The Court directed that public officials who engage in such actions be held accountable.
"Public officials who take the law into their own hands and act in a high-handed manner must be held accountable," the Court observed, underlining the importance of respecting due process.
Further, the Court noted that demolitions often impose "collective punishment" on the families of the accused or convicted, and therefore outlined specific guidelines to prevent misuse of such actions. Key directives included:
Authorities must issue a show-cause notice before proceeding with demolitions, giving owners at least 15 days to respond.
Property owners should be notified via registered post, and the notice must detail the nature of the unauthorised construction and grounds for demolition.
The designated authority must allow for a personal hearing, with proceedings duly recorded.
Demolition actions should be videographed, with reports sent to the Municipal Commissioner.
Even after issuing a demolition order, affected parties should be given time to challenge it legally. In cases where individuals do not wish to contest, adequate time must be allowed for vacating the premises.
The Court highlighted the adverse impact of such demolitions on vulnerable groups, observing, "It is not a happy sight to see women, children, and aged persons dragged to the street overnight. Heavens will not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period."
However, the Court clarified that these guidelines would not apply to cases of unauthorised structures on public land, such as roads, footpaths, railway lines, or water bodies, or where a Court order for demolition exists.
This judgement builds upon previous stays on demolitions, including an interim order on 17 September, which prohibited demolitions across the country without Court permission except in cases of public encroachments.
