Supreme Court dismissing pleas for independent probe into the CBI court judge’s death in December 2014 raises more questions — not only on the case itself, but also on executive-judiciary nexus.
By alerting the nation that ‘democracy was in danger’, the quartet of judges has upheld constitutional values at a time when the rule of law faces unprecedented attack.
If federalism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, then it must naturally follow that every Constitutional institution must be federal in character.
The role of Parliament has been limited or confined only to the decision on the question of punitive action: namely removal of a judge based on the proven misconduct.
Whenever there is any doubt whether a judge should recuse herself/himself or not, the balance should be tilted in favour of recusal and eliminate any appearance of bias whatsoever
His efforts on opening up the judiciary to more scrutiny — be it through his strong dissent in the NJAC judgment, his engagements with the Collegium process, or leading the press conference in January 2018 — are a rarity in our times.
Years of battle fought by women lawyers have culminated into the historic order of the Supreme Court directing high courts and district courts to set up sexual harassment complaint committees.
The role of the judiciary seems to be gradually shifting from being a check on power to being a partner in power. The separation of powers is being weakened in a quest for reunification of all sovereign power under one common leadership.
Is it proper to deal with the misbehaviour of a HC Judge under the contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, instead of invoking the constitutional remedy?
We need an effective, practical and comprehensive mechanism to deal with complaints against judges that at the same time could also ensure no honest judge is victimised.
It is an age-old concept with its roots in the doctrine of the Separation of Powers, which is not only a human rights issue, but a core value of Rule of Law.