Four questions for Ranjan Gogoi
A Chief Justice of India, like Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion. But certain recent developments in India’s Supreme Court, the latest being the inordinate delay and repeated adjournments in hearing the Ram Janmabhumi case,( fixing dates for fixing a date etc) has caused murmurings and raised questions about the conduct of the present Chief Justice of India, which are best answered and cleared up by him himself.
(Justice Markandey Katju)
As a former Judge of the Supreme Court I am deeply concerned about what is going on in the sacred institution I had the honor of serving, and on behalf of the people of India I ask Ranjan Gogoi, the present CJI the following questions which he should publicly answer. After all, in a democracy the people are supreme, and all state authorities and institutions (including even the CJI) are servants of the people and accountable to them :
1. Gogoi’s daughter married the son of Justice Valmiki Mehta, judge of Delhi High Court. There were serious allegations against Valmiki Mehta, which were enquired into by the then CJI Justice Thakur and found to be true. Hence in March 2016 the Supreme Court Collegium presided over by Justice Thakur recommended transfer of Justice Valmiki Mehta to another High Court.
Usually such a recommendation is implemented by the government of India in a couple of weeks. But strangely enough in this case the Government. of India put the file containing the recommendation in the cold storage for about one year. In the meantime, the then CJI Thakur fumed repeatedly about the non-implementation of the recommendation, often in open court, and even threatened to tell the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court to withdraw judicial work from Valmiki Mehta in view of the very serious allegations against him, but all to no avail. It was only after Justice Thakur retired in January 2017, and a more amenable Justice Kehar became the CJI that the file was returned by the government to the Supreme Court (instead of forwarding it to the President of India for his signature), and thereafter the new Collegium headed by the new CJI Kehar revoked the earlier recommendation, with the result that Valmiki Mehta remains a judge of the Delhi High Court till date. What is the truth behind this mystery?
The information I have, but whose correctness or otherwise only Gogoi can answer, is this: on getting to know of the recommendation of his sambandhi’s transfer, Gogoi went to the PM Modi (or a senior Cabinet minister) and begged that Valmiki Mehta be not transferred. Since by dint of seniority Gogoi was in line of becoming a CJI, the government acceded to his request, and kept the file in cold storage, instead of forwarding it to the President of India for his signature.
If this version is correct, obviously Gogoi has taken a favor from the BJP government which he has to return, and that would explain many of the happenings in the Supreme Court.
Gogoi is now the Chief Justice of India, so all the records in the Supreme Court registry are accessible to him. Let him therefore place in the public domain (1) the recommendation of the Collegium headed by the then CJI Thakur for transfer of Valmiki Mehta (2) the letters of the then CJI Thakur to the government of India asking why the transfer recommendation was not being implemented, and the replies of the government (3) The letter of the government sending the recommendation back to the Supreme Court headed by the new CJI Kehar ( 4) The resolution of the Collegium headed by Justice Kehar revoking the recommendation for Justice Mehta’s transfer
2. The son of Valmiki Mehta (son-in-law of Gogoi) is a lawyer. It is believed his practice and income suddenly soared by leaps and bounds after his marriage. So, let Gogoi mention what was his son-in-law’s income before and after his marriage
3. Three judges of Delhi High Court, Justice Pradeep Nandrajog (presently CJ Rajasthan High Court), Justice Gita Mittal (presently CJ J&K High Court) and Justice Ravindra Bhat, who were all senior to Justice Sanjiv Khanna in Delhi High Court were superseded. Why? I was Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, and personally knew that all 3 (who were puisne judges of the High Court at that time) had impeccable records of integrity and competence, and in fact Justice Nabdrajog had been recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium which met on 12.12.2018 to be elevated to the Supreme Court. That recommendation had been signed by all 5 of the Collegium members, but thereafter CJI Gogoi simply pocketed the recommendation paper and did not send it to the Government of India, as is usually done. Why ? I spoke to Justice Lokur who was in that Collegium (and was next in seniority after Gogoi) and he told me that after the recommendation was made and signed, he telephoned Gogoi’s residence repeatedly to ask whether the recommendation had been forwarded to the government, but every time some secretary would pick up the phone and say that the CJI was not well, and Gogoi never returned the call. Later, Gogoi said that the recommendation had not been sent to the government because consultation with the consulting judges had not been done, though such consultation takes only a day or two (as I know from personal experience ).
This supersession of three meritorious judges reminds one of the supersessions of three senior Supreme Court judges by Indira Gandhi’s government, and it has sent a very wrong message throughout the judiciary, apart from having a very demoralizing effect on those three judges. A senior Supreme Court lawyer has in fact insinuated that it was done at the behest of the BJP government. There were no doubt other judges in the Collegium which recommended Justice Khanna, but they weakly surrendered to Gogoi who bulldozed Justice Khanna’s name offering little resistance ( as I was informed by several Supreme Court Judges whom I personally contacted and spoke to ).
If there was anything against these 3 judges senior to Justice Khanna the public is entitled to know. If there was nothing against Justice Nandrajog on 12.12.2018 when the then Collegium recommended his name for elevation, did something crop up within 3 weeks? It is all a mystery.
Moreover, Justice Maheshwari, who has now been elevated, had been specifically rejected by the Collegium which met on 12.12.2018 (as Justice Lokur who was on that Collegium informed me). Did he suddenly become competent within three weeks ?
4. Why is the Ramjanmabhumi case being adjourned again and again on one pretext or the other? And why are dates being fixed for fixing a date? Again, a mystery. Is this some kind of quid pro quo? Only Gogoi can answer.
[Justice Markandey Katju is former Judge, Supreme Court of India and former Chairman, Press Council of India. The views expressed are his own]
courtesy : indicanews.com
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.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
