The Bill intends to lay out that preliminary enquiry shall not be required for registration of a FIR against any person; or the Investigating Officer shall not require approval for the arrest of any accused person. For a Dalit, securing proper non-delayed investigation and successful prosecution is almost improbable which might result from intimidation of the victim and witnesses. The requirement of prior sanction would thus worsen the problem of delay in prosecution and hostility of witnesses.
With 143 names recommended by the High Court Collegium pending with the Supreme Court Collegium, it seems the latter too must be blamed for staggering vacancies in the high courts of India.
The notification comes days before the anniversary of Jaising’s ‘Gown Wapsi’ movement. On August 15 of last year, she shed her senior counsel gown to symbolise the discrimination inherent in the senior advocate designation process. The eligibility criterion for designation is a minimum of 10 years combined standing as an advocate or a District Judge, or as a Judicial Member of any Tribunal whose qualification for eligibility isn't less than that prescribed for a District judge.
According to their warrants of appointments signed off by the President of India on August 3, 2018, Justice K M Joseph has been put below the other two justices in the seniority order despite the fact that Justice Joseph’s name was initially recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium much before the name of Justices Banerjee and Saran. The Collegium erred knowing fully that reiteration of his name along with the names of other Chief Justices could compromise his seniority further.
The Supreme Court’s Collegium consisting of the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Kurian Joseph and Jutsice A K Sikri, had reiterated his name for the appointment as judge of the Supreme Court on July 16, 2018 after Centre government had returned his name for reconsideration in April 2018.
The MoS Law and Justice P P Chaudhary skirted the reply to the question which specially sought to know steps taken by the government to facilitate removal of Justice Shukla, therefore, making it appear that the government has not taken any initiative to remove the tainted judge.
Justice Rajendra Menon has been subject to incriminating comments from a Joint Inquiry Committee led by Justice Banumathi, as per he he has been found guilty of wrongfully and punitively transferring a former woman ADJ who had accused Justice S K Gangele of Madhya Pradesh of sexually harassing her. Does Delhi High Court deserve Justice Menon as the next Chief Justice in place of Justice Aniruddha Bose of Calcutta High Court, the Collegium’s initial, and unblemished, choice?
The former woman judge pleaded that her resignation — given four years back in the wake of “unbearable circumstances” — amounted to an act of constructive termination. She claims that she was forced to put in her papers as a consequence of her being unlawfully and in a mala fide manner transferred to a conflict area for not bowing to the immoral demands of a Madhya Pradesh High Court judge.
Whether it was the order favouring video recording of court proceedings, or the one allowing entry of people belonging to all faiths into Puri’s Jagannath temple, or the one diluting the provisions of the SC/ST Act and that of Section 498A — Justice Goel’s tenure resulted in discursive changes.