Tag: #CJI

The Supreme Court on 16th August, 2021, criticized the Tribunals Reforms Bill 2021 introduced by the Finance Minister, Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman, on August 2, 2021, and passed by the Parliament last week. The Bill reenacts the same provisions struck down by the Court in the Madras Bar Association vs Union Of India on 14 July 2021.

The Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General of India why the bill was introduced with the provisions struck down by the Court. CJI NV Ramana said that the Court was not commenting on the Parliament proceedings, but at least the Court must know why they introduced the Bill despite it being struck down by the Court. The CJI said that the Finance Minister replied to the court that it did not strike down the provisions on grounds of unconstitutionality. Further, the CJI went on to say if the statement of reasons made by the Minister can be presented in the Court.

The Solicitor General replied that since the Bill was yet to become an Act, he did not have the authority to give any response. He further requested a time order to consult AG KK Venugopal, so that he could make a statement in the Court. The Court expressed its concerns about the vacancies remaining unfilled in Tribunals. The CJI quoted to the Solicitor General observations from the judgment of the Madras Bar Association case, where the Court concluded how it was necessary to keep Tribunals free of executive influence, and how justice can be achieved only when these Tribunals could function independently of any executive control.

The CJI added some other portions from the same judgment which disapproved of the practice of legislature making laws to nullify judgments. The Solicitor General requested ten more days to make a statement regarding the filling up of vacancies, the CJI replied that enough number of vacancies were given last time too.

The Solicitor General assured that progress can be made in the next ten days as the concerns of the Court were communicated to the Centre. He further added that appointments were “under process”.

CJI replied that they have been hearing these words “under process” for too long and that now these words meant nothing. Further, he gave ten days and hoped that appointments will be completed within these days. The bench said that only because the presence of such issues should not be a hindrance in the way of appointing members to Tribunals, ten more days were given.

Report by Jayseeka Virdi

As changing time the old slow system should also be replaced with a new and faster system. As electronics have become such a crucial part of our lives so their need is felt in some parts of the Judiciary as well to faster the system. As the old and existing system of transiting bail always delays the release of the prisoners so on Friday Chief Justice of India NV Ramana stated his thought on bringing a new system to transit bail electronically to the prison authority so that there should not be any delay in the release of the prisoners as soon as bail is granted to them.

Chief Justice of India felt the need for this change while an order to release a prisoner is granted by the court but it is delayed just because the prison authority hasn’t received is a copy of it yet. After knowing this CJI said, “this is too much”. He also stated that in the generation where communication can be done in seconds, we are still looking at the skies for the pigeons to communicate the orders. As there is numerous case still pending and release of prisoners on are on just because we are lacking back with a change in time.

So Chief Justice directed the Secretary of the Supreme Court to come up within one month with a system to communicate the bail release electronically so that this outdated system can be detached from Supreme Court.

-Report by RIDDHI DUBEY

Supreme Court Bar Association wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India N.V Ramana saying that the current situation of Covid-19 is normal and there were a lot of cases pending in Delhi, so The SCBA requested and wrote a letter to CJI to start the physical hearings of SC following strict rules with Covid-19 protocols.

Where, the former Solicitor General and Senior Supreme Court lawyer, Vikas Singh had written the letter to the Chief Justice of India and requested the chief justice of India to resume the physical hearings of the courts following strict rules with covid-19 protocols. In this letter, the supreme court bar association said that most of the Lawyers aged below 45 years had been undertaken a vaccination program and while Advocates who were above 45 years have already been vaccinated.

The SCBA said that in the present scenario where we would start the court normally by taking care of the covid-19 so that the court functions do not affect in any manner. Supreme Court Bar Association also added that if the third wave hits we would be known only when the action of virus takes place and since the government is aggressively conduction genome sequencing. The fact of the third wave would be known in the public areas the moment it states that the SCBA has added.

SCBA has also mentioned that almost all our stakeholders have been taken their first dose of vaccine and most of them have taken two doses as well. And also said that there is a slot of 45 minutes should be assigned for miscellaneous and final disposal matters and thereafter that three slots of 1 hour should be assigned for two final hearings matters in each slot so that the total 6 final hearing matters can be taken up.

To avoid overcrowding in the courtrooms so for that media persons should not be allowed in the courtrooms and should only be allowed to watch the proceedings through virtual mode only said the supreme court bar association. Finally, the Bar Association said that even the litigants were not be allowed to the courtrooms because we don’t know their vaccination status. And Advocates may be allowed to access the libraries and lounges in the high-security zone.

-Report by RAVINUTHALA VAMSI KRISHNA

Justice Sanjay Yadav took oath as Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court on 13th June demitted office on Friday. It was the shortest tenure of Chief Justice in the history of the High Court. He discharged his duty as head of the state judiciary for 13 days. Earlier to Justice Yadav Justice Kamal Narain Singh had the shortest tenure of 17 days, from November 25 to December 12, 1991, and Justice Y V Chandrachud had the longest tenure as CJI.

The reason behind his short tenure is that according to the rule a Chief Justice can serve only up to the age of 62 years and as Justice Sanjay Yadav had turned 62 years he had retired. Before being appointed as Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court he used to serve in Madhya Pradesh High Court. He has also served as Judge of the Allahabad High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court.

During his tenure in the biggest High Court in India the duties and growth made by him in the matters such as Suo motu COVID-19 proceedings, the dignified burial of unidentified bodies near Ganga, Petitions challenging the validity of anti-conversion law.

-Report by RIDDHI DUBEY