The Chief Justice said the idea was to make the process of appointments to the Supreme Court transparent by identifying definite parameters of selection even though the process cannot be held in the public realm
Chief Justice of India Justice D.Y. Chandrachud addresses a gathering at the Ram Jethmalani memorial lecture at the NDMC Convention Centre in New Delhi on September 15, 2023. | Photo Credit: ANI
Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on Friday said the apex court with a young team of distinguished scholars, interns and law researchers had prepared a “broad platform” to assess every one of the “top 50 judges” in the country who would be considered for appointment as judges of the Supreme Court.
“One of the criticisms about the collegium system is that we have no factual data to evaluate people whom we are considering for appointment to the Supreme Court,” Chief Justice Chandrachud noted.
The Chief Justice was speaking at the Ram Jethmalani Memorial Lecture’s centenary edition when he unravelled the “work in progress” to make the collegium system “more transparent”.
“I have a Centre for Research and Planning headed by an officer of the Haryana Judicial Services with two very distinguished young scholars and a number of young people — interns, law researchers who work with us for two years. We have prepared a dossier… I should not say ‘dossier’, but a broad platform in which we have assessed every one of the top 50 judges in the country who would be considered for appointment as judges of the Supreme Court,” Chief Justice Chandrachud disclosed to an audience of Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, serving and retired judges, eminent jurists like Fali S. Nariman, senior advocates and law students.
The Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi lauded the Supreme Court and Chief Justice DY Chandrachud for the onboarding of the Supreme Court data on the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG). Stating that the harnessing of technology would further transparency, the Prime Minister took to his twitter account to state–
Laudatory step by the Supreme Court and CJI DY Chandrachud Ji. Such harnessing of technology will further transparency and enhance the justice delivery system in our country.
Laudatory step by the Supreme Court and CJI DY Chandrachud Ji. Such harnessing of technology will further transparency and enhance the justice delivery system in our country. https://t.co/oAGZ03eOHY
This morning, the CJI had announced that the Supreme Court is officially ‘onboard’ with the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) now. The CJI described the onboarding of the Supreme Court data on NJDG portal under the court’s ‘open data policy’ as a step “to bring transparency and accountability in the judicial domain.”
Many petitions also challenged the Jammu and Kashmir State Reorganization Act, by which the state was bifurcated into two Union territories in 2019.
Many petitions also challenged the Jammu and Kashmir State Reorganization Act, by which the state was bifurcated into two Union territories with effect from October 30, 2019 (HT Archive)
Following a marathon hearing spanning over 16 days, the Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict in a clutch of petitions that have challenged the August 2019 abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and the subsequent restructuring of the state into two Union territories.
The Constitution bench that heard and reserved the matter comprised Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Bhushan R Gavai and Surya Kant.
The hearing commenced on August 2 after a hiatus of over three years, with its last listing dating back to March 2020 when a five-judge bench declined to refer the matter to a larger bench. The reference was sought on the grounds that two previous judgments of the apex court were conflicting with each other, but the bench did not agree with this contention.
The final leg of the proceedings in the matter witnessed extensive arguments and discussions with the petitioners buttressing on the permanent nature of Article 370 and thus, the special status of J&K while the Centre and other respondents emphasising that the provision was always meant to be temporary and that its abrogation was the ultimate step towards complete integration of J&K with the Union of India.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal spearheaded the legal submissions on behalf of the petitioners in the case, followed by a strong line up of other senior counsel, including Gopal Subramanian, Rajeev Dhavan, Dushyant Dave, Zafar Shah, CU Singh and Gopal Sankaranarayanan.
While some petitioners brought up the requirement of consent from the constituent assembly for abrogation of Article 370, others questioned the validity of the President’s rule that was in effect when the abrogation was made. A few of these pleas went back to the Instrument of Accession, while some highlighted the Supreme Court’s ruling of 2018 that observed that Article 370 had gained a status of permanence.
A bench of CJI DY Chandrachud as well as Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued notice on the plea that asserted that transgender persons are entitled to reservation under Article 16 of the Indian Constitution.
Transgender persons and Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Friday sought the responses of the Central government and all States and Union Territories on a plea seeking reservation for transgender persons in education and employment [Subi KV vs Union of India and Ors.].
A bench of CJI DY Chandrachud as well as Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued notice on the plea that asserted that transgender persons are entitled to reservation under Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment) of the Constitution.
The plea filed by Subi KC, a transgender person from Kerala, drew the Court’s attention to a report by the National Aids Control Organisation (NACO), in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
This report indicated that insufficient training and employment skill programs for transgender individuals have resulted in a significant lack of employment opportunities for this marginalized group.
The petition highlighted that while the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 has granted various rights to transgender individuals, it does not offer reservations in education or employment.
Moreover, the petition pointed out that multiple writ petitions have been filed in High Courts to implement reservations in public employment as requested by the petitioners. However, no concrete steps have been taken so far to ensure such reservations for transgender individuals.
Additionally, the plea mentioned that numerous studies and reports demonstrate that the transgender community is socially, economically, and educationally disadvantaged. Therefore, their dire circumstances need urgent addressal through the enactment and implementation of provisions for reservations, it said.
CBI’s petition contesting the bail granted to Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad Yadav in the fodder scam case was heard before Justice AS Bopanna in Supreme Court on Friday (25 August).
Kapil Sibal, the legal representative for Lalu Yadav, highlighted that the former Bihar Chief Minister had undergone a kidney transplant, and Sibal insinuated that the CBI was aiming to reincarcerate him.
Responding to this, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) pointed out that Lalu Yadav was recently captured playing badminton.
The CBI’s lawyer criticized the decision to grant bail to Lalu Yadav, asserting that it was erroneous. He additionally pledged to demonstrate during the trial how the bail decision was flawed.
Meanwhile, RJD ally Janata Dalu (United) or JD(U)’s leader and Bihar CM Nitish Kumar has accused the CBI of unnecessarily troubling Lalu Yadav by challenging his bail in Supreme Court.
The post doing the rounds on social media claimed that the CJI has appealed to the public to unite and come out on the streets against ‘dictatorial government’.
The Public Relations Office (PRO) of the Supreme Court Monday flagged a fake piece of news circulating on social media and messenger apps falsely attributing a quote to Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud.
The post doing the rounds on social media claimed that the CJI has appealed to the public to unite and come out on the streets to fight for their rights against ‘dictatorial government’.
The PRO in a press note stated that the social media post is fake, ill-intended and mischievous and was not issued by the CJI or anyone authorised by him.
“No such post has been issued by the Chief Justice of India nor has he authorised any such post. Appropriate action is being taken in this regard with the law enforcement authorities,” the PRO made it clear.
Underlining that the key question for any determination under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, the Supreme Court Friday declined to stop the survey of the Gyanvapi mosque complex in Varanasi by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
The survey — it began Friday — was ordered by the Varanasi District and Sessions Court on July 21 and upheld by the Allahabad High Court on August 2.
While the district court order allowed excavation if necessary, the ASI assured the High Court that it will not resort to excavation or any method that will in any manner damage the existing structure.
Upholding the High Court order, a three-judge bench, presided by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, directed that “the entire process shall be concluded through any non-invasive methodology”. The bench was hearing a plea by the Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee which had challenged the survey order.
“The order of the learned trial judge… cannot prima facie at this stage be construed to be without jurisdiction… The HC was, in our view, correct in introducing certain specific directions to circumscribe the nature of the order which was passed by the district judge. Reading the directions which have been issued by the district judge, it is apparent that they would be amenable to carrying out an excavation at the site. However, during the course of the proceedings before the HC, the ASI has clarified on affidavit that it was neither carrying out any excavation nor would the survey involve any destruction of the property,” the bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said in its order.
Recording the statement of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta “to the effect that the survey shall not involve any excavation at the site or any destruction of the structure”, the bench directed “that the entire process shall be concluded through any non-invasive methodology that may be adopted by the ASI. We reiterate the direction of the HC that there shall be no excavation at the site which was in accord with the statement which was made before the HC by the Additional SG, and which has been reiterated in the submissions made by the SG before this court on behalf of the ASI”.
It said that “the report which will be prepared by the ASI shall… be remitted to the trial court and shall thereafter abide by the directions that shall be passed by the District Judge at the trial of the suit”.
Appearing for the mosque committee, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi opposed the decision for an ASI survey, saying it was done even before deciding the preliminary issues involved in the civil suit and that it violated the Places of Worship Act.
Referring to the objects and reasons of the Act, he pointed out that it says that the religious character of a place will remain the same as it was on August 15, 1947.
To this, the CJI said, “So, there are two bars. Section 3 is the bar on converting any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section into a place of worship of a different section or religious denomination, and Section 4 (1) says it is hereby declared that the religious character of a place of worship… therefore, the religious character shall not be changed. So the whole question is really on what is the religious character as on August 15, 1947”.
Hearing the Gyanvapi matter in May 2022 too, the Supreme Court had said that “ascertainment of the religious character of a place is not barred” by the Act.
Ahmadi then referred to the Ayodhya judgement where the Supreme Court had hailed the Act. The CJI said “that is a matter for decision”.
The Supreme Court has before it a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act.
Ahmadi said, “There is one passage with regard to the wounds of the past. And Your Lordships say that is the very substratum of the Places of Worship Act. Now, having a survey into those aspects will itself frustrate the objective of the Act… This was the intent of Parliament. This is something which was in the form of a promise held out to one community, that your places of worship will not be touched. And today, you have a situation where virtually this is only reduced to a homily.”
The CJI said, “Therefore, we are keen to ensure that the mosque should not be touched. We had made it clear when it was sent back (earlier) to HC.”
Gandhi’s Lok Sabha membership will stand restored with the stay on his conviction.
Rahul Gandhi and Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the conviction and two-year jail term imposed on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi by a Gujarat court in a criminal defamation case for his remark “All thieves have Modi surname” [Rahul Gandhi vs Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi and anr].
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha and PV Sanjay Kumar said that the trial court did not give any specific reasons for imposing the maximum punishment of two years’ imprisonment prescribed under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the offence of defamation though the offence is a non-cognizable one.
The apex court further noted that that the ramifications of the ruling (of conviction) are wide and affect the rights of electorate of Wayanad, the constituency which Gandhi was representing as a member of parliament (MP) in the Lok Sabha.
He had been disqualified from parliament after his conviction in the case.
“We are of the considered view that the ramification of subsection (3) of Section 8 of the [Representation of People] Act are wide-ranging. They not only affect the right of the appellant to continue in public life but also affect the right of the electorate, who have elected him, to represent their constituency. We are of the considered view, taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects and particularly that no reasons have been given by the learned Trial Judge for imposing the maximum sentence which has the effect of incurring disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Act, the order of conviction needs to be stayed, pending hearing of the present appeal,” the top court ordered.
With this order, Gandhi’s membership to Lok Sabha from Wayanad would stand restored.
Pendency of appeal would not come in way of appellate court in deciding appeal in accordance with law, the Court added.
The Court in its order underscored that the trial judge was expected to give reasons for imposing maximum punishment for a non-cognizable offence.
“Except the admonition given to the appellant by this Court in contempt proceedings … no other reason has been assigned by the learned Trial Judge while imposing the maximum sentence of two years … Had the sentence been even a day lesser, the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 8 of the Act would not have been attracted. Particularly, when an offence is non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable, the least that the Trial Judge was expected to do was to give some reasons as to why, in the facts and circumstances, he found it necessary to impose the maximum sentence of two years,” the Court said.
The Court also noted that the Sessions Court and the Gujarat High Court too did not go into that aspect.
“Though the learned Appellate Court and the learned High Court have spent voluminous pages while rejecting the application for stay of conviction, these aspects have not even been touched,” the order noted.
At the same time, the Court also said that persons in public life should exercise caution while making statements.
“No doubt that the alleged utterances by the appellant are not in good taste. A person in public life is expected to exercise a degree of restraint while making public speeches. However, as has been observed by this Court while accepting affidavit of the appellant herein in aforementioned contempt proceedings, the appellant herein ought to have been more careful while making the public speech.”
Gandhi moved the top court after a Magistrate court convicted him and a Sessions Court as well as the Gujarat High Court refused to stay the conviction.
The Supreme Court had last month issued notice on the plea by Congress leader.
Gandhi’s plea before the apex court was limited to a prayer for stay on conviction and two-year sentence imposed by the Magistrate court.
The Congress leader was convicted by a Magistrate court in Surat on March 23 for his remark that he had made at an election rally in Karnataka’s Kolar constituency, in 2019.
Gandhi had, in his speech linked Prime Minister Narendra Modi with fugitives like Nirav Modi and Lalit Modi.
He had said,
“Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi. How come all the thieves have ‘Modi’ as a common surname?”
The proceedings in the instant case arose after Purnesh Modi, a former BJP Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), had taken exception to the the remarks in question, claiming that Gandhi humiliated and defamed persons with the Modi surname.
The magistrate court accepted the contention of Modi that by his speech, Gandhi has intentionally insulted the people with a ‘Modi’ surname.
In his 168-page judgment, Judge Hadirash Varma said that since Gandhi is a Member of Parliament (MP), whatever he says will have a greater impact. Thus, he should have exercised restraint, the Magistrate ruled.
A sessions court in Surat had, on April 20, dismissed Gandhi’s plea seeking suspension of his conviction by the Magistrate court.
Gandhi then moved the High Court, which too refused to extend relief to him leading to the present appeal before the top court.
Purnesh Modi in his counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court contended that Gandhi has remained arrogant and refused to apologise.
In response, the Congress leader remained steadfast in his stance that he is not guilty of the offence of criminal defamation.
He said that if he wanted to apologise and compound the offence, he could have done it much earlier.
“In order to help the Court to determine the nature of investigation, we direct the DGP Manipur to be personally present on Monday, August 7 in Supreme Court to aid the Court,” the Court’s order stated.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the Director General of Police (DGP) of Manipur to be personally present in Court on August 7, when the Court will next hear the slew of petitions concerning the violence that has engulfed the north-eastern State.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed the order in a batch of petitions seeking independent probe into the violence in Manipur including a plea by two women from Kuki-Zomi community who were seen in a video being paraded naked and molested by a mob of men.
The Court today castigated the authorities and the State police today over their apparent failure to control the law and order situation that unfolded in Manipur.
“Based on the preliminary data, it prima facie appears that investigation has been tardy with considerable lapse between occurrence and the registration of the FIR, recording of witness statements and arrests have been few and far between. In order to help the Court to determine the nature of investigation, we direct the DGP Manipur to be personally present in Supreme Court to aid the Court,” the Court’s order stated.
The Court further mooted formation of a judicial committee comprising retired judges to examine the allegations and cases.
“We may think of eventually based on the data, we were thinking of constituting a committee of former judges of the High Court. It will be broad based committee. First we will decide on the remit such as relief, compensation, rehabilitation, to ensure the investigation is fair, recording of section 164 statements irrespective of where the victims are. Many have left Manipur. We are inclined to form a committee,” the Court remarked.
It then asked the Solicitor General to take instructions on who should probe the cases.
On this aspect, the Court also remarked that it had some suggestions in mind on how the investigation may be guided.
“There are 6,500 FIRs .. Of course, full cannot be transferred to the CBI. CBI will be rendered dysfunctional… We have some suggestions on how to lead the probe into all these FIRs. Entrusting CBI with the investigation of 6,500 FIRs is impossible and State police cannot look into this. We will hear you and then pass our order. We have given you our mind so that there are no surprises,” the Court told the Solicitor General.
Justice Chandrachud responded to Bansuri Swaraj, who said, ‘I am seeking pan-India relief for women. They are all daughters of India’
CJI Chandrachud. File Photo
The Supreme Court on Monday said the atrocities on women in the Manipur violence cannot be excused merely because similar incidents had been reported from other states like Bengal, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan.
“We will deal with it later. But here, we are dealing with something which is
unprecedented violence relating to communal and sectarian strife,” Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud said.
The Chief Justice was responding to Bansuri Swaraj, advocate and daughter of the late BJP leader and Union minister Sushma Swaraj.
Bansuri’s clients wanted the top court to expand the scope of the present suo motu hearing on the Manipur violence to include similar crimes committed against women in Bengal, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan.
Bansuri said: “I am seeking pan-India relief for women. They are all daughters of India.”
Chief Justice Chandrachud responded: “Are you for a moment saying that do something for all the daughters of India or don’t do anything for anybody at all?”
Bansuri said: “No, my plea is ‘protect all the daughters of India’.”
The bench then asked her to give suggestions on the Manipur incident alone and mention the issues related to other states later.
The Chief Justice added: “You cannot excuse what is taking place in Manipur now on the ground that such crimes are happening to several other women as well in other parts of the country.”
The Supreme Court bench, which included Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, made no mention of it but the Narendra Modi government has been accused by the Opposition of indulging in “whataboutery” after a video showing the savagery on two women who were paraded naked in Manipur emerged.
A day after the video emerged, ending his months-long silence on the Manipur violence, Prime Minister Modi had said: “…My heart is full of pain, full of anger. The incident that has come to the fore in Manipur is a shameful one for any civilised society…. Be it Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Manipur or any part of the country, maintaining law and order and respecting women should be put above any political debate.
On Monday, Bansuri was appearing in the court for two interveners — the SS Human Rights Foundation, Purba Bardhaman, West Bengal, through Sangita Chakraborty, and the Delhi-based Sangini Saheli through Priyal Bhardwaj.
The bench said: “Undoubtedly, there are crimes taking place against women all over the country. But then that is part of our social reality. However, in Manipur, we are dealing with something which is of an unprecedented magnitude, mainly crime and the unabated violence in a situation relating to communal and sectarian strife.”
Referring to the allegations associated with Bengal, Bansuri said: “These are all bone-chilling incidents. Your Lordships must protect all daughters of India and not limit the mechanism only to the state of Manipur,” the counsel said.
‘Will skies fall if interim protection is granted for one week?’, asked the three judge bench, which assembled after a split in a two-judge bench.
The Supreme Court at a special sitting on Saturday night granted interim relief to social activist Teesta Setalvad in connection with an FIR lodged against her by Gujarat police for allegedly fabricating documents to implicate high government functionaries in relation to the 2002 Gujarat riots. While staying the Gujarat High Court’s order which dismissed her bail application and directed Setalvad to immediately surrender, the 3-judge bench took note of the earlier order passed by the Supreme Court in September 2022 which granted her interim bail.
The bench noted that while passing the September 2022 order, the earlier bench led by the then CJI UU Lalit had taken into account the fact that the petitioner was a lady who was entitled to special protection under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Taking this factor into consideration, the bench opined, the single bench of the High Court ought to have granted some protection to the petitioner so that she can challenge the order before the Supreme Court. The bench directed that the High Court’s order be stayed for a week. While doing so, the bench clarified that it has not gone into the merits of the matter and was only concerned with the High Court’s rejection of interim relief.
“In that view of the matter, without considering anything on merits of the matter, finding that the learned Single Judge was not correct in granting even some protection, we grant stay of the impugned order passed by the High Court for a period of one week from today”,observed the bench.
The Court was of the view that it is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed.
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently held that the quantum of punishment in a given case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime and therefore, it is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed [State of Punjab v. Dil Bahadur].
A division bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar said that imposing inadequate sentence due to undue sympathy would do more harm to the justice system and undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law.
“We again reiterate in this case that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed,” the Court said.
Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime, the bench ruled.
“The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which both the criminal and the victim belong,” the Court observed.
The Court was hearing an appeal against a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had though upheld the conviction of respondent for the offence under Section 304A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The High Court had, however, reduced the sentence from two years to eight months, subject to a prior deposit of ₹25,000 towards compensation to be paid to family/legal heirs of the deceased.
The respondent-accused was driving a Scorpio Car in a rash and negligent manner, due to which one person died while overtaking an ambulance from the left. The ambulance turned turtle due to the collision and two persons sitting in the ambulance also suffered injuries
The trial court convicted the respondent-accused under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and the same was confirmed by the sessions court. However, in revision, the High Court reduced the sentence.
Aggrieved, the State approached the Supreme Court by way of appeal.
The Supreme Court noted that while reducing the sentence, the High Court had not considered the gravity of the offence and the manner in which the accused committed the offence
“Cogent reasons were given by the trial court while sentencing the accused to undergo two years RI for the offence under Section 304A of IPC. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the case on behalf of the accused that he is coming from a poor family, is considered as mitigating circumstance,” the apex court said.
The Court then highlighted the nature of the IPC, which is punitive and deterrent in nature, with the objective to punish offenders for offences committed.
The highest court of the land has chosen to include the Leader of Opposition and CJI along with the Prime Minister in a special committee to advise the President to appoint the Chief Election Commissioner and his two colleagues. This enhances India’s shining reputation as the largest democracy
Supreme Court of India. PTI
The momentous verdict of the Supreme Court taking away the power of ruling governments to unilaterally choose Election Commissioners has crucial implications for India as a functioning democracy. It has in one stroke addressed disturbing questions being raised about the integrity and autonomy of the two most important watchdogs of Indian democracy – the Election Commission and the Supreme Court itself.
The fact that the highest court of the land has chosen against the plea of the government to include the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice along with the Prime Minister in a special committee to advise the President to appoint the Chief Election Commissioner and his two colleague Commissioners certainly enhances this country’s shining reputation as the world’s largest democracy.
Indeed the landmark decision has come at a time when there has been growing despair about whether the unique experiment with democracy as envisaged by the founding fathers of the Indian republic was at all feasible any longer.
There is little doubt that despite elections remaining hugely popular even more so among the poor and semi-literate they have been increasingly muddied by political manipulation both before and after the electoral contest through organised rigging and the return of large scale horse trading of elected representatives bypassing the anti-defection law. Sadly, the Election Commission has shown palpable lack of purpose in recent years to stop this corruption of the popular verdict giving the impression that it was disinclined to play the role of a vigilant watchdog.
To compound the woes of Indian democracy, there has been a simultaneous perception of a diminished judiciary including the Supreme Court reluctant to tilt at the windmills of political power. It is therefore all the more significant that the five member Supreme Court member headed by Justice K M Joseph has not only intervened on such a vital matter but also in its order made a scathing indictment of powerful political interests undermining an independent Election Commission.
The court noted that even after 75 years after Independence successive political dispensations which have come to power so far have made no effort to frame a law guiding the appointments to the Election Commission.
“Political parties betray a special interest in not forthcoming with a law. The reasons are not far to seek… There is a crucial link between the independence of the Election Commission and the pursuit of power by parties, their consolidation and perpetuation… An insatiable quest to continue in the saddle requires a pliable Election Commission who functions as an unfair and biased overseer of the electoral process which lies at the very heart of democracy… An Election Commissioner who obliges the powers that be, perhaps even offers an assured gateway to the acquisition of power,” Justice Joseph observed.
The petitioner, a non-profit called National Platform for Rights of the Disabled, told the court that the option to exercise the choice of joining the IPS and other central police services for this selection cycle expired on Thursday.
The petitioner, a non-profit called National Platform for Rights of the Disabled, told the court that the option to exercise the choice of joining the IPS and other central police services for this selection cycle expired on Thursday.
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed physically challenged candidates who have cleared the civil services exam to provisionally opt for the Indian Police Service, the Railway Protection Force, and the Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Service (Danips), after a petition filed by a disabled rights organisation challenged a rule that denied them entry into the country’s elite police forces.
“We direct the secretary general of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to accept hard copies of applications from the concerned candidates, such as the petitioner and similarly placed persons, if submitted physically or through courier on or before April 1 in the office of the secretary general, Union Public Service Commission before 4pm,” a bench of justices AM Khanwilkar and AS Oka said in their interim order.
The petitioner, a non-profit called National Platform for Rights of the Disabled, told the court that the option to exercise the choice of joining the IPS and other central police services for this selection cycle expired on Thursday. Its counsel, senior advocate Arvind Datar, therefore, proposed that the disabled candidates be allowed to apply for the time being, and these applications could be taken up for consideration subject to a final decision taken by the court.
