A silent Regular Blood donor .... Guess who?

40 ವರ್ಷಗಳಿಂದ ಪ್ರತಿ ಮೂರು ತಿಂಗಳಿಗೊಮ್ಮೆ ರಕ್ತದಾನ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ಸುಪ್ರೀಂಕೋರ್ಟ್ ಮುಖ್ಯನ್ಯಾಯಾಧೀಶರು..!

Since 40 years, every three months the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India has been donating blood.

ನಮ್ಮ ಸಮಾಜದಲ್ಲಿ ರಕ್ತದಾನ ಮಾಡುವವರ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ ತುಂಬಾ ಕಡಿಮೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಬಹುದು. ಯಾರಾದರೂ ತಮ್ಮ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ್ಯರು, ಬಂಧುಗಳು, ಸ್ನೇಹಿತರಿಗೆ ಅವಶ್ಯಕತೆ ಇದ್ದರೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ರಕ್ತದಾನ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಯಾರೋ ಕೆಲವರು ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಭಿನ್ನವಾಗಿ ಯೋಚಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅಂತಹ ಕೆಲವರಲ್ಲಿ ಅವರು ಒಬ್ಬರು. ಆದರೆ ಅವರು ಸಾಧಾರಣ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಭಾರತದ ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಖ್ಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಧೀಶ. ಅಂತಹ ಅತ್ಯುನ್ನತ ಪದವಿಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದು ಸಹ ರಕ್ತದಾನ ಮಾಡುವುದನ್ನು ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸಿಲ್ಲ.

Not everyone in India willingly or of his own accord consents for blood donation, unless the life of a friend or relative is at stake.
But the Chief Justice of Supreme Court o India, has set an example for all of us.

ಎಷ್ಟೇ ಉನ್ನತ ಸ್ಥಾನದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದರೂ ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಬ‌್ಬರು ತಮ್ಮ ಕನಿಷ್ಠ ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ ಜವಾಬ್ದಾರಿಯನ್ನು ಮರೆಯಬಾರದೆಂದು  Chief Justice ಜಗದೀಶ್ ಸಿಂಗ್ ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ.
He says everyone should have a Basic or Minimum sense of Social Responsibility irrespective of his position  or status in life.

ಇವರಿಗೆ ವಯಸ್ಸಾದರೂ ಸಹ ರಕ್ತದಾನ ಮಾಡುವುದನ್ನು ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸಿಲ್ಲ.  ಇವರನ್ನು ಎಲ್ಲರೂ ಆದರ್ಶವಾಗಿ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡರೆ ಎಷ್ಟೋ ಜನರ ಬದುಕಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಬೆಳಕು ತಂದವರಾಗುತ್ತವೆ.

Despite his age and attaining the highest Constitutional Position CJ Jagadish Singh Kehar has not stopped Blood Donation. He is a role model for everyone.

ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ವಿಷಯ… CJ ಜಗದೀಶ್ ಸಿಂಗ್ ಹಾಗೆ ರಕ್ತದಾನ ಮಾಡುವುದನ್ನು ಯಾರಿಗೂ ತಿಳಿಸಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ.

This fact came to light just recently when the CJ had been to AIIMS Delhi to donate blood as usual, and was not known in thepublic realm all these years.

Source - https://kannada.ap2tg.com/supreme-court-chief-justice-participating-in-blood-donations-from-40-years/

Supreme Court flays the government for turning to judges whenever in problem

Source - http://www.india.com/loudspeaker/supreme-court-flays-the-government-for-turning-to-judges-whenever-in-problem-101283/

New Delhi, Jul 23: Criticising the government for substituting judges with subject experts without legal background in tribunals under its control, the Supreme Courtsaid that whenever it is confronted with contentious issues it knocks at the doors of the court for their resolution. “Judges may not be expert but whenever problem arises they (government) come to judges either by way of (setting up) Commission or (approach) Court to decide the issues” said the apex court constitution bench of Chief Justice R.M. Lodha, Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Justice J. Chelameswar, Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.

The court was apparently referring to numerous instance when government has moved the top court for the resolution of contentious and delicate issues which have political and other implications. The court said this as it reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the National Tax Tribunal Act and Article 323-A of the constitution providing for administrative tribunals, and Article 323-B providing for tribunals for all other matters including tax, foreign exchange, import and export and customs.

The government wants to do away with the “artificial knowledge” of the judges which they gain from decades of their practice of law first at the bar and later on bench, and substitute them on the tribunals with non-judicial members having “specialised knowledge” bereft of any legal grooming, the court said.

The scathing observations came as senior counsel Arvind Dattar told the court that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and National Tax Tribunals while deciding the tax matters were also deciding the matters related to the Hindu succession law. The court asked Dattar to provide with some of the cases where tax tribunal has decided the tax matters involving the Hindu succession law.

Dattar who appeared for Madras Bar Association told the court that while Article 323-A of the constitution had sought to eliminate judicial review for the executive actions in service matters, Article 323-B “enabled the creation of parallel judiciary under the executive control.” He said that at any rate Article 323-A “should be struck down” and Article 323-B must be interpreted so that the word “Tribunal” only covers tribunals that are part of the judiciary like Rent Control Tribunals, Motor Vehicles Tribunals, Labour Tribunals etc.”

Assailing the Centre’s stand that tribunals were created because high courts were clogged with the huge pendency, Dattar said that “clogging” of the high courts could not be a ground for creating a judicial system out the constitutionally mandated judiciary with defined hierarchy.

Dattar wondered whether same logic could be extended to have an “alternative institutional mechanism” for parliament as its functioning or lack of it has been criticised variously. The Chief Justice Lodha in a mocking observation said that tribunals that were being constituted were not independent what to talk of being autonomous.

Chief Justice Lodha’s scathing observations came as Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar while defending the dispensation of justice by the tribunals referred to a British judgment supporting tribunals. Ranjit Kumar landed in difficulty as British judgment stressed on the “autonomy” of the tribunals and not dispensing with the “constitutional role of the High Courts – a position that is non-existent in Indian context.

Earlier in the course of the hearing the court told senior counsel K.V. Vishwanathan that deciding an appeal involved a complex knowledge of law which was beyond the comprehension of a chartered accountant.

“How a CA who is not qualified in law, can help in the determination of substantial question of law, and to spell out what is the substantial question of law was beyond their comprehension”, the court told Vishwanathan who had appeared for the Instituted of Company Secretaries of India.

Justice RM Lodha sworn in as the 41st Chief Justice of India

Justice R M Lodha. (Photo: PTI)

Justice Rajendra Mal Lodha was sworn in as the 41st Chief Justice of India on Sunday by President Pranab Mukherjee at the Rashtrapati Bhavan. He succeeds Justice P Sathasivam who had been heading the top court since July last.

At 64, Justice Lodha is the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court after Justice Sathasivam. He will have a brief tenure of five months as the Chief Justice as he is scheduled to retire on September 27. His name, as the next Chief Justice of India (CJI), was recommended by Justice Sathasivam.

As per the Memorandum of Procedure which governs the appointment of members of the higher judiciary, appointment to the office of the Chief Justice of India should be of the senior most judge of the Supreme Court considered fit to hold the office. It stipulates that the law minister would, at the appropriate time, seek the recommendation of the outgoing Chief Justice of India for the appointment of his successor. Under this process, after receipt of the recommendation of the CJI, the law minister puts it up to the prime minister who then advises the president in the matter of appointment.

Born in Jodhpur, Justice Lodha enrolled with the Bar Council of Rajasthan in February 1973. He practiced Law in the Rajasthan High Court and dealt with all branches of law - constitutional, civil, company, criminal, taxation and labour. He was elevated as a Permanent Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in January 1994. He was transferred to the Bombay High Court where he assumed office in February 1994.

Justice Lodha was transferred back to the Rajasthan High Court in February 2007. He had been the Administrative Judge of the Rajasthan High Court and was chairman of the State Judicial Academy. He was sworn in as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court on May 13, 2008 and was elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court on December 17, 2008.


Source: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/140427/nation-current-affairs/article/justice-r-m-lodha-be-sworn-new-chief-justice-india-today

Year of criticism, from the bench and against it - Express India

Year of criticism, from the bench and against it - Express India:

'via Blog this'

Year of criticism, from the bench and against it

Krishnadas Rajagopal Posted: Jan 02, 2012 at 0040 hrs

New Delhi Judicial activism was the key in many Supreme Court observations and judgments during 2011.

2011

CVC THOMAS: A three-judge bench led by CJI SH Kapadia declared “non est” — or nonexistent — the majority recommendation of a high-powered committee for P J Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner. The court ruled that the Prime Minister and the Home Minister’s recommendation amounted to “official arbitrariness”, coming in spite of the dissent of the third committee member (the Leader of the Opposition) and without considering the relevant material.

LEADERS vs JUDGES: Rajya Sabha members went on TV to criticise the “growing” cases of corruption among judges and raised a pitch for a Judges Accountability Bill. The CJI responded that an honest judge need not worry about such a bill, and shot back at the parliamentarians for putting all judges in the same category of “corrupt” judges. He went on to issue an open challenge to the lawmakers that if “you” want to dismantle the institution of judiciary, first show how to build a better alternative.

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: Two back-to-back rulings in July by an SC bench led by Justice Sudershan Reddy were widely criticised as instances of judicial overreach and activism. First, it set up a Special Investigation Team to investigate and bring home back black money abroad. The decision was challenged by the government; a second Bench then reached a split decision. In the other judgment, Justice Reddy ordered the Chhattisgarh government to disband vigilante groups (Salwa Judum) fighting against Naxals, criticising the “new mantra from the mandarins of security and high economic policy of the state — tax breaks for the rich and guns for the youngsters amongst the poor”. The order was later modified. When the controversy was raging, a Bench led by Justice G S Singhvi criticised “some lawyers, journalists and men in public life” for accusing the judiciary of over-reach when it entertains public interest litigations espousing the cause of the poor and downtrodden. “So far, the courts have been used only for the purpose of vindicating the rights of the wealthy and the affluent,” the bench said.

2G BAIL: In February, the Supreme Court had exhorted the CBI, “You must catch them all.” Then in November, it criticised a tendency shown by lower courts to deny bail to any of the persons arrested. “Right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused,” Justice H L Dattu wrote in his judgment. Five executives of Unitech, Swan Telecom and Reliance ADAG later got bail.

BHOPAL GAS LEAK: On May 12, the Supreme Court threw out the CBI’s curative petition against a 1996 judgment that described the tragedy as an act of negligence and not culpable homicide on the part of Union Carbide staffers. The court refused to take the blame for fact the eight accused had “walked away” with a two-year jail term from the Bhopal chief judicial magistrate’s court, after a 26-year trial.

AMAR SINGH: The Supreme Court’s displeasure at the CBI’s “shoddy” probe in the cash-for-vote case led to the former Samajwadi Party leader’s arrest. And when he decided to remove the Congress’s name from the list of those he accused of tapping his calls, the SC suspected his actual motives. The court further lifted a five-year-old ban on publication of the tapes of those conversations.

Post-GODHRA: The Supreme Court pulled out of monitoring the Ehsaan Jafri case in which Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and 63 other high functionaries were accused of several offences. It ordered the SIT to present its report before the Gujarat magistrate concerned. It was the only case involving the riots that named Modi directly.

AYODHYA: The Supreme Court re-kindled the 60-year-old dispute when it stayed an Allahabad High Court judgment, calling it a “leap of faith”. The Supreme Court said it found it “strange and surprising” that the High Court had taken it upon itself to “partition” the site.

GRAHAM STAINES: The Supreme Court invited criticism when it confirmed the life sentence awarded to Dara Singh, who burnt alive the Australian missionary and his two sons in 1999. The court cited the reason that the intent was only to teach a lesson to the father about religious conversion. The court later suo motu deleted this portion from the judgment.

NITHARI: A bench led by Justice Markandeya Katju made a decisive comment when it observed that Surendra Koli “appears to be a serial killer”. The court went on to confirm the death penalty awarded to Koli.

EUTHANASIA: The SC for the first time allowed passive euthanasia “under exceptional conditions” and set down guidelines for it. The decision came in the case of nurse Aruna Shanbaug.

ENDOSULFAN: The SC banned the production and sale of endosulfan, a cheap but controversial agrochemical used by farmers, noting that the life of one child is more precious than all the financial losses that industry will incur.

BELLARY: The Supreme Court suspended mining in this district, saying miners’ “greed” has overshot the court’s efforts to balance environmental concerns and development.

2012

26/11: The final hearing on Ajmal Kasab’s appeal against the death penalty will start on January 31. The Supreme Court has suspended the death sentence, saying it would like to hear the plea at length as “due process of law” has to be followed.

AFSPA: The CBI has sought a clarification on the extent of immunity enjoyed by Army personnel under this Act and other laws for fake encounter killings. The agency wants the lifting of an SC stay on the trial in a J&K court relating to the killing of seven youths by the Army.

VODAFONE: A judgment is awaited on the Vodafone tax case, in which the company argues it is not liable to pay capital gains tax because the deal to buy Hutchison’s India operations was done overseas.

N-LIABILITY: A PIL on nuclear liability and safety of plants will be heard. The petition wants an independent safety regulator set up.

END OF TERM: CJI S H Kapadia retires in September.

CJI Kapadia laments lawyers' disinterest in law - Times of India

Chief Justice of India S H Kapadia on Saturday rued the fact that neither senior lawyers nor students of law take any real interest in their subject - law.

"Senior lawyers are not contributing to development of law, as they used to do in the past. Even young students do not take interest in this pursuit. Earlier in the Supreme Court, such students used to come, sit in courtrooms and take notes. But now they disappear in five minutes. They are more interested in transaction matters. There is nothing wrong in it. But how many can now argue on reasonableness?," said Justice Kapadia.

The CJI was speaking on 'Constitutional Morality' at the sixth Justice P D Desai Memorial Lecture organised by the Praleen Charitable Trust here.

Justice Kapadia advised students from various universities present at the function not to rely totally on information downloaded from internet. "Please do not go by guides and internet. You have to put in hard work. Money will not make you happy, but it's the learning that will," he said adding that the future generation of lawyers should be able to argue on doctrine of reasonableness and principles.

The CJI praised India for its vastness of opportunities by citing his own example as how he began his career as a peon in a Parsi trust and how he reached the top post of judiciary. "Ability may take you to the top, but you require character to remain on the top," he said advising young lawyers to maintain integrity in their profession.

Justice Kapadia also advised judges not to lecture society. "The problem is that sometimes we judges impose our own values, our own likes or dislikes on the society. The judges should keep in mind that we cannot judge the wisdom of legislatures. We have to work for constitutional principles. I have no right to say what others should do, but I have to perform the duty on constitutional principles," he said.

Source - http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-03-13/ahmedabad/28685847_1_justice-kapadia-sc-judges-young-lawyers

New Chief Justice of India Sworn In - The Hindu

The Hindu : Front Page : Frivolous PIL will attract huge costs: New CJI

Justice Sarosh Homi Kapadia, the seniormost judge of the Supreme Court, was sworn in as the 38th Chief Justice of India on Wednesday. President Pratibha Patil administered the oath of office to him at a brief ceremony at the Rashtrapati Bhavan. Justice Kapadia, first CJI born after Independence, will have a tenure of two years and four months till September 28, 2012.

A stickler for discipline and procedures and adherence to rules, he has endeared himself to the Bar and the Bench. On his first day as CJI, he made his intentions loud and clear. He said huge costs would be imposed on litigants filing frivolous public interest litigation (PIL) petitions.

Justice Kapadia said he would not allow oral mention by lawyers and litigants in the court at 10-30 a.m. before the commencement of proceedings. The mentioning matter would come to the Bench through the department concerned where it should be filed a day earlier for consideration the next day.

Among those who attended the swearing-in were Vice-President Hamid Ansari, the outgoing CJI, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan; the former CJIs, Justices A.S. Anand and Y.K. Sabharwal; Congress president Sonia Gandhi, Home Minister P. Chidambaram, Law Minister Veerappa Moily, Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal, Supreme Court Bar Association president Ram Jethmalani, All-India Bar Association chairman Adish C. Agarwala, Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati, the former Attorney-General K. Parasaran, other senior lawyers and family members of Justice Kapadia.

Justice Kapadia was initially appointed additional judge of the Bombay High Court in October 1991 and made permanent judge in March 1993.

For more than three years, he was special judge of the special court under the Securities Transaction Act. On August 5, 2003, he was appointed Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court. On December 18, 2003, he was elevated to the Supreme Court. In the past six-and-half years, he has delivered several landmark judgments under the constitutional, taxation, regulatory and commercial laws.

Mr. Vahanvati, Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam and members of the Bar greeted Justice Kapadia on his assuming office as CJI. In his response, he said: “I want a pro-active Bar and not a reactive Bar.” He finished the hearing of the day's list in about 30 minutes.

Justice Balakrishnan retires

Justice K.G. Balakrishnan laid down office on Tuesday, after a tenure of three years and four months as Chief Justice of India and nearly 10 years as judge of the Supreme Court.

Justice Balakrishnan, who endeared himself to the Bar and the Bench, was a given a warm farewell at a function held in the Supreme Court.

Speaking to journalists, he said a “halfway” mechanism to deal with errant judges was not suitable for the judiciary. Such a method was often criticised, as “judges are not like ordinary government servants. If the integrity of a judge is doubtful, we cannot censure him or warn him or suspend him. It should be the end of his career. So, that is why halfway methods are not suitable for the judiciary.”

To a query whether a mechanism was needed to deal with errant judges, Justice Balakrishnan said: “The thinking process is there to deal with errant judges, and the government is in the process of bringing in the Judicial Accountability Bill, which is before the select committee of Parliament.”

Asked about the setting up of special courts for terror attack cases, he said he had written to the Prime Minister last year for creation of 600 CBI courts across the country. The matter was being looked into by the Law Ministry. The State governments must also find out how to set up the designated courts.

On honour killings, he said: “These are social issues. There are certain prohibited relationships in the Hindu Marriage Act. It is not the law that prompts one to get into a love relationship. Once we are in love, obviously they don't mind personal law. So law amended or not... these are social issues and opinions vary from people to people.”

As for the collegium system of appointment of judges, Justice Balakrishnan said the present system would continue until a better one was put in place.

He, however, said the procedure could be reviewed. “If the country needs a better system and If Parliament thinks so, there can be a better system. There is nothing wrong in reviewing it.”

Asked about the number of cases cleared during his tenure as CJI, he said the total number of cases disposed of in 2001 was 38,842, whereas in 2007 it was 61,257; in 2008, 67,459 and in 2009, 71,179. But the number of cases instituted also increased.

At the farewell function, CJI-designate Justice S.H. Kapadia said: “At administrative meetings and collegiums meetings, we express our views. On many occasions, we disagree. But at the end of the day, after the meeting was over, Justice Balakrishnan never treated those who differed with the view as opponents. This is the quality of Justice Balakrishnan.”

Source - The Hindu

Justice to the Poor - India's Chief Justice says

India's courts must bring justice to the poor

By Bijo Francis
Column: Incredible India Source

India’s Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan has warned that riots could result if the country’s courts do not act to address the judiciary’s inability to deliver decisions in a timely manner. The chief justice was addressing the press in Kochi, Kerala state on Sunday.
The admission of the chief justice suggests that the judiciary is waking up to the reality that the root cause of many internal disturbances is the denial of justice to the people. Court cases sometimes take a decade to be resolved. Yet judicial delay is just one among several ways in which justice is denied to the people.
The Maoist and Naxalite movements are one example. Naxalism and Maoism in India are a collective and violent response against decades of injustice meted out against the poor. Both movements gain their core strength from the poorest of the poor. It is not a coincidence therefore that these movements spread most quickly among the tribal peoples.
Over the past 10 years tribal communities, particularly those in India’s central and southeastern states, have been pushed to the fringes of society. The short-term and profit-motivated mining and deforestation policies implemented by the state as well as the central government have stolen the rich natural resources that the tribal communities depended upon for hundreds of years.
Most industrial schemes in the region were implemented under the excuse of development, and indigenous communities were never consulted before the schemes were designed or executed. This was a denial of these people’s right to a hearing, a complete negation of their indigenous wisdom and an insult to their culture.
The government has repeatedly denied requests by members of tribal communities for a fair hearing and silenced those who protested. Hundreds have lost their lives in the process. In addition, state agencies like the police and the forest department have wreaked havoc in the region by fabricating cases against members of tribal communities.
Officers also engage in criminal activities including rape, murder and stealing tribal properties, but not a single state agent has been successfully prosecuted for any crimes committed. The police firing into a crowd of protesting tribal members at Narayanpatna police station in Orissa state in November is just the latest such incident.
Similar problems have arisen in India’s northeastern states. There was a lack of consultative process even during the period of India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. The leaders of these people were not involved in discussions during the drafting of the country's Constitution.
A chief commissioner or a lieutenant governor, acting as an agent of the president, ruled India’s northeastern state of Manipur for 28 years. Indeed, there was an advisory council appointed by the president in consultation with the chief commissioner, which met once in three months, presided over by the chief commissioner. The council was an advisory body and as such its advice was not necessarily binding on the chief commissioner.
This situation continued until July 1963. The intervening period of criminal maladministration was long enough to create the state of serious unrest that exists in Manipur today.
The institution headed by Justice Balakrishnan has a role to play in Manipur today. The people of Manipur have repeatedly approached the court seeking its intervention against the implementation of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 in parts of the state.
The draconian law provides statutory impunity to the armed forces and security agencies like the police who operate in the state for criminal acts like murder. Even a non-commissioned officer can shoot and kill a person on mere suspicion under this law, and officers have used their arbitrary authority in plenty. The number of extrajudicial executions carried out in Manipur has been the highest in the country for the past several years.
It is indeed elementary that any law that provides impunity to law enforcement agencies would be misused. Yet the Supreme Court of India lacked the elementary sense each time someone approached the court seeking the court's intervention to quash the law.
Riots and civil unrest in India today are mostly limited to regions that have suffered decades of denial of justice. The worst affected are once again the poorest.
India's courts have in the past spoken for the poor. However, they have also shown a trend of corporatization where the poor have no role. It remains to be seen whether the Indian judiciary can recover its lost love for ordinary Indians.

Chief Justice of India for Assets Confiscation in Corruption Cases

NEW DELHI: Taking note of the demands for enhancing penalties and punishment under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan on Saturday appeared inclined in favour of a statutory provision for confiscation of assets of persons convicted of offences under the PCA.

“The rationale behind the same is that if a public official amasses wealth at the cost of the public, then the state is justified in seizing such assets. [But] Similar enactments under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Properties) Act, 1976 in case of persons arrested under detention laws have not proved to be very successful,” he said.

Such proposals needed to be thoroughly examined for constitutional compatibility before they were legislated, Justice Balakrishnan said addressing a two-day national seminar on “Fighting Crimes Related to Corruption,” organised here jointly by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science.

Shortage of courts

Procedural delays in granting sanction and difficulty in marshalling a large number of witnesses were the major hurdles to achieving meaningful convictions. Anti-corruption agencies were already finding it difficult to grapple with 9,000 pending cases due to shortage of designated courts.

“It is necessary there should be a speedy manner of granting sanction. The prosecution becomes ineffective if the sanction is granted after 6-7 years.”

The Chief Justice also expressed concern over the fact that the CBI, instead of basing its case on solid witnesses, was relying on a large number of witnesses in corruption cases, and thus the trial was prolonged for three to four years.

Referring to the PCA, he said the foremost criticism of the law was that an investigating agency, in order to initiate prosecution against a public servant, needed to obtain prior sanction from the competent authority which was delayed or denied.

“Even in instances where the investigating agencies have gathered substantial material to proceed against a person, it is felt that the necessary sanction is not given on account of extraneous considerations.”

The CJI said there was need for separation of the CBI’s prosecution and investigating functions. “I understand that there has been considerable resistance to this suggestion, since investigating officers and prosecution lawyers need to work in close co-ordination. The real problem here is that the CBI has been relying on government law officers and standing counsel to conduct prosecutions, whereas there is a need for retaining a regular team of lawyers."

Source - Indian Express

NEW DELHI: While coming down heavily on corruption, the Chief Justice of India, K G Balakrishnan, said on Saturday that the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) provision asking investigating agencies to seek permission from higher authorities for prosecuting accused public servants could be contributing in creating a "climate of impunity" where the requisite sanction is either delayed or denied because of extraneous considerations.

He emphasized that it is not the quantum of punishment but the certainty of punishment which proves to be an effective deterrent against corruption and how it was important to address the issue of obstructions in the investigation and trial process.

"Even in instances where the investigating agencies have gathered substantial material to proceed against a person, it is felt that the necessary sanction is not given on account of extraneous considerations. In many cases, aggrieved parties have approached the higher judiciary when the requisite sanctions have been denied despite the production of incriminating materials," he saidd.

Addressing a seminar on corruption organized by CBI and National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Sciences, Balakrishnan said corruption in some cases can be a threat to national security. He cited the example of how smuggled arms and explosives were used for the 1993 Mumbai blasts.

The CJI said there might be a case in near future for the higher judiciary to grant effective constitutional remedies in respect of instances of corruption, over and above the statutory remedies provided by the PCA. "In recent years, several instances of corruption by high-level officials have been recorded by the higher judiciary in the exercise of their writ jurisdiction, but the same do not amount to convictions and hence effective punishments could not be given. Therefore, our deliberations should focus on how to strengthen the investigation and prosecution of corruption cases, so that the courts of first instance are able to improve the conviction rates."

He, however, also cautioned that any proposal to amend the PCA must be thoroughly scrutinized for its constitutional compatibility before it is enacted in the form of legislation. "One prominent suggestion is the inclusion of a statutory remedy that will enable confiscation of properties belonging to persons who are convicted of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The rationale behind the same is that if a public official amasses wealth at the cost of the public, then the state is justified in seizing such assets. Similar enactments like SAFEMA in case of persons arrested under detention laws have not proved to be very successful," he said.

He also spoke on the "controversial issue" of separation of prosecution functions from the investigative functions of CBI saying the agency needs a specialized and dedicated team of lawyers. He asserted that CBI relying on government law officers and standing counsels to conduct prosecutions was the real problem.

Source - Times of India