DOCSLIB.ORG

Impeachment Mainstream Weekly

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Impeachment Mainstream Weekly Mainstream Weekly Mainstream, VOL LVI No 24 New Delhi June 2, 2018 Impeachment Saturday 2 June 2018 by Sardar Amjad Ali I hope there may not be any noble soul to contradict, if I say the impeachment of Lord Warren Hastings before the British Parliament, beginning on February 18, 1788, was one of the most sensational and eventful trials, with the members of the House of Commons on the right and the Law Lords of the House of Lords on the left, ending after a period of seven years, though as a “failed move”. The most celebrated and powerful speakers like Edmund Burke and Sheridan had participated in that famous trial. On the process to move a notice of impeachment of the present Chief Justice of India, Shri Dipak Misra, by more than the required number of members of the Rajya Sabha, the House of the Elders of Indian Parliament, may we recall what one of the most brilliant parliamentarians of the world, Lord Edmund Burke, speaking in favour of the motion of impeachment and in support of the charges of misconduct of Lord Warren Hastings, had said: “Law and arbitrary power are in eternal enmity.” “This arbitrary power is not to be had by conquest. Nor any sovereign can have it by successions, for no man can succeed to Fraud, rapine and violence. Those who give and those who receive arbitrary power, are equal criminals”. In a sense, the CJI is “Sovereign” in the judicial hierarchy of India. He is not only the “Paterfamilias” of the judicial system, but an “institution” within an institution called the Indian Judiciary. But the question crops up whether a Judge is endowed with a power beyond the statute or judicial propriety or the rational tests of transparency in application of this power as a Judge either in Judicial or even in exercise of his administrative power as a Judge of the system endowed on him, nonetheless than a Judge. By all means the CJI is repository of not only the judicial conscience and wisdom of the highest degree but also the most noble-hearted, tolerant and polite human species together with the most principled infallible and ideal human virtues. CJI Misra was elevated as 45th Chief Justice of India on and from August 28, 2017 and will continue till October 2, 2018. His heredity is of course worth mentioning. Born in a politically enlightened family of legislators and of legal luminaries, Justice Misra had made his marks not only when he was in the Bar but in the Bench too. A hardworking, well-read man as he is, he was highly appreciated in the Judicial fraternity as a liberal, relief-oriented and pragramatic personality. As a Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court (I had the privilege to appear in one case with Prashant Bhusan’s younger brother before Justice Misra) Justice Misra was liked by many and disliked by not a few too as an impatient arbiter of complicated lis. But the Delhi High Court was too near to the Apex Court of India. Elevated as an additional Judge in 1996 to the Orissa High Court, he opted for a transfer to the Madhya Pradesh High Court where he remained till 2009. With the blessings of the then Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, he was transferred to the Delhi High Court and within a period of two years to the Apex Court where He is now in the centre of a controversy as the Chief Justice of India. Eulogies have been showered on him aplenty as a judge beyond superstition and traditional religious bias as were very lucidly ventilated in his Lordship’s verdict on the “Jalli Kattu Case” of animal sacrifice or in awarding death penalty to rapists of the Nirbhaya case. The rise of Justice Misra from the beginning as an Additional Judge of the Orissa High Court to Madhya Pradesh, to Patna, to Delhi and ultimately to the Apex Court was during the Congress regime, both in the States as well as at the Centre. Even if it is seen as a coincidence, it at least reflects a “crying truth” that the Congress did not stand in the way of recognising his Lordship’s talent, not because of his Lordship’s relationship with his “uncle” Ranganath Misra, the former Chief Justice of India, neither taking cognisance of his elder uncle Lokenath Misra’s association with the Congress Party’s most rabid political opponent, Swatantra Party, later on the Janata Party’s (a faction of the Jana Sangh) MP in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and during Vajpayee’s regime, a Governor of Assam and Nagaland. A strange coincidence it is that talented Warren Hastings, beginning his carrier as an East India Company’s clerk, was endowed with the highest prestige as a de facto Governor General of India from 1773 to 1785, from the first Governor of the Presidency of Fort William. A talented Dipak Misra was rightly honoured having been elevated as the Paterfamilias of the Judicial Hierarchy of India, the Supreme Court and of the Constitutional Court of Independent India. During His stewardship as the Governor General of British India Hastings had, knowingly or unknowingly, committed crimes of misdemea-nours, incompatible with British dignity, by using the Company’s troops as mercenaries against the innocent Rohillas and perpetrating unfair persecution against the Begums of Oudh to part with their treasures, taking bribes from Munni Begum, Nand Kumar being hanged with the help of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, although showing his skill that a British Empire with a strong base can be established in a far distant territory away from their home and inhabited by a populace of diverse race, communities, religiosity and cultures. As Chief Justice, Justice Misra, notwithstanding his achievements in awarding pragmatic judicial pronouncements compelling the police to unload the FIRs lodged with them within 24 hours facilitating the accused persons to take appropriate legal steps for their personal liberty or the necessity of need-based reservation in service, introduction of the system of video conferencing with poor prisoners serving jail term and advocates serving free legal aid and such other reformatory measures through the National Legal Services, his pedantic and high brow attitude towards senior Advocates like Rajeev Dhawan, U.U. Lalit, Prashant Bhusan or the holding of an early morning bench at 2 am in Yakub Menon’s case to dismissing his petition for keeping the execution order stayed with Menon executed two hours after his verdict, compelling movie viewers to stand up and show their nationalism when National Anthem is played in public theatres and subsequently withdrawing the ruling as a result of public criticism, were apparent controversies that were percolating in the public mind as the filter behind his eminence. Those apart, some very sensitive issues like acquisition of a government land while he was a practising Advocate at the Cuttack High Court by submitting a false affidavit about his eligibility to get the land in question and afterwards return the same while he is the Chief Justice, the introduction of the system of roster for assignment of case to different benches only after were charges publicly levelled by his Senior Colleagues about allocating the Bench of his preference for adjudication of politically sensitive cases. He, as the Master of Roster, without giving due recognition to the wisdom of Senior Judges of the Apex Court, together with other charges of alleged irregularities indulged in by him as the Chief Justice, as inscribed in the notice of motion for presenting an address before the President of India for his removal from the Supreme Court, in the Rajya Sabha, did shake the confidence of the people upon his integrity, transparency, uprightness and lack of Judicial conscience. At least two of the five charges appear to have been admitted, namely, regarding the land deal and assignment of cases as the Master of Roster to selective Judges. The rejection of the motion by the Chairman of Rajya Sabha cannot be sustained on legal scrutiny. Articles 124 (4) and (5) read with section 3 of the Judges Inquiry Act, 68 emphatically mandates that a Judge may be removed upon proved misdeamour by an Address to be made to the President of India by a required number of members of either Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, presented before the designated House of Parliament and passed in the prescribed manner. The Chairman, in my opinion, is not competent to judge the veracity of the charges other than scrutinising the validity/invalidity of the notice of motion, for acceptance of the motion for discussion in the House or rejection of the same over which he presides. When constitutionally a power is vested in the Houses of the Parliament, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or the Speaker of the Lok Sabha cannot usurp the power of the Houses by applying a subjective test of his alone and arrive at a judgment that the notice of motion, “is neither tenable nor admissible”. The Chairman took the charges, the foundation of the motion, for giving his verdict as baseless for the reason that those do not certainly constitute proof beyond “reasonable doubt”. Apart from the question of his competence to Judge the correctness of the charges, the Chairman, a Member, a Pracharak, a Minister, a former President of the BJP and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha as a BJP candidate, could not but for oblique purpose and extraneous consideration see through the facts of surrender of the land for which the CJI was charged and the introduction of the roster system of allocation of cases after publicly raised charges by his four seniormost colleagues.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Supreme Court of India
    Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Re: Filling up vacancies of Judges in the Supreme Court. Against the sanctioned strength of 31 Judges, the Supreme Court of India is presently functioning with 25 Judges, leaving six clear vacancies. The Collegium met today to consider filling up of these vacancies and after extensive discussion and deliberations unanimously resolves to fill up, for the present, two of these vacancies. The Collegium discussed names of Chief Justices and senior puisne High Court Judges eligible for appointment as Judges of the Supreme Court. The Collegium considers that at present Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph, who hails from Kerala High Court and is currently functioning as Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court, is more deserving and suitable in all respects than other Chief Justices and senior puisne Judges of High Courts for being appointed as Judges of the Supreme Court of India. While recommending the name of Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph, the Collegium has taken into consideration combined seniority on all-India basis of Chief Justices and senior puisne Judges of High Courts, apart from their merit and integrity. Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph was appointed as a Judge of the Kerala High Court on 14th October, 2004 and was elevated as Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court on 31st July, 2014 and since Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) 2 then has been functioning there. He stands at Sl. No.45 in the combined seniority of High Court Judges on all-India basis. We have also considered the names of eminent members of the Bar.
    [Show full text]
  • Dated 9Th October, 2018 Reg. Elevation
    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA This file relates to the proposal for appointment of following seven Advocates, as Judges of the Kerala High Court: 1. Shri V.G.Arun, 2. Shri N. Nagaresh, 3. Shri P. Gopal, 4. Shri P.V.Kunhikrishnan, 5. Shri S. Ramesh, 6. Shri Viju Abraham, 7. Shri George Varghese. The above recommendation made by the then Chief Justice of the th Kerala High Court on 7 March, 2018, in consultation with his two senior- most colleagues, has the concurrence of the State Government of Kerala. In order to ascertain suitability of the above-named recommendees for elevation to the High Court, we have consulted our colleagues conversant with the affairs of the Kerala High Court. Copies of letters of opinion of our consultee-colleagues received in this regard are placed below. For purpose of assessing merit and suitability of the above-named recommendees for elevation to the High Court, we have carefully scrutinized the material placed in the file including the observations made by the Department of Justice therein. Apart from this, we invited all the above-named recommendees with a view to have an interaction with them. On the basis of interaction and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) V.G.Arun, (2) N. Nagaresh, and (3) P.V.Kunhikrishnan, Advocates (mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1, 2 and 4 above) are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Kerala High Court. As regards S/Shri S. Ramesh, Viju Abraham, and George Varghese, Advocates (mentioned at Sl.
    [Show full text]
  • National Initiative to Reduce Pendency and Delay in Judicial System
    Conference Proceedings of National Initiative to Reduce Pendency and Delay in Judicial System Organized by : SUPREME COURT OF INDIA In collaboration with : THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE New Delhi 27-28 July 2018 Hon’ble Shri Justice Dipak Misra Chief Justice of India Conference Proceedings of National Initiative to Reduce Pendency and Delay in Judicial System CONTENTS PART I PAGES BACKGROUND 13 INAUGURAL SESSION: Inaugural Address by Hon’ble Shri Justice Dipak Misra, Chief Justice of India 16 Summary of Special Address by Hon’ble Shri Justice Ranjan Gogoi, 26 Judge, Supreme Court of India Summary of Address by Hon’ble Shri Justice Madan B. Lokur, 29 Judge, Supreme Court of India Summary of Address by Hon’ble Shri Justice Kurian Joseph, 34 Judge, Supreme Court of India Vote of Thanks by Prof. (Dr.) Manoj Kumar Sinha, 38 Director, Indian Law Institute SESSION I: CASE AND COURT MANAGEMENT TO STRENGTHEN JUDICIARY – THE WAY AHEAD Chair: Hon’ble Shri Justice A.K. Sikri, 43 Judge, Supreme Court of India Co Chair: Hon’ble Shri Justice D.B. Bhosale, 44 Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Speaker: Prof. (Dr.) M.P. Singh, Chancellor, Central University of Haryana 45 & Chair Professor, Centre for Comparative Law, National Law University, Delhi Summing up by the Chair 46 SESSION II: ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE MECHANISM- AN EFFECTIVE SOLUTION TOWARDS REDUCING PENDENCY Chair: Hon’ble Shri Justice Kurian Joseph, 53 Judge, Supreme Court of India Co Chair: Hon’ble Shri Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, 54 Judge, Supreme Court of India Speaker: Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, Vice Chancellor, 55 National Law University, Delhi Summing up by the Chair 57 7 Conference Proceedings of National Initiative to Reduce Pendency and Delay in Judicial System SESSION III: USE OF TECHNOLOGY – A POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO ADDRESS DELAY AND TO DELIVER SPEEDY JUSTICE Chair: Hon’ble Shri Justice Madan B.
    [Show full text]
  • Securing the Independence of the Judiciary-The Indian Experience
    SECURING THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY-THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE M. P. Singh* We have provided in the Constitution for a judiciary which will be independent. It is difficult to suggest anything more to make the Supreme Court and the High Courts independent of the influence of the executive. There is an attempt made in the Constitutionto make even the lowerjudiciary independent of any outside or extraneous influence.' There can be no difference of opinion in the House that ourjudiciary must both be independent of the executive and must also be competent in itself And the question is how these two objects could be secured.' I. INTRODUCTION An independent judiciary is necessary for a free society and a constitutional democracy. It ensures the rule of law and realization of human rights and also the prosperity and stability of a society.3 The independence of the judiciary is normally assured through the constitution but it may also be assured through legislation, conventions, and other suitable norms and practices. Following the Constitution of the United States, almost all constitutions lay down at least the foundations, if not the entire edifices, of an * Professor of Law, University of Delhi, India. The author was a Visiting Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and Public International Law, Heidelberg, Germany. I am grateful to the University of Delhi for granting me leave and to the Max Planck Institute for giving me the research fellowship and excellent facilities to work. I am also grateful to Dieter Conrad, Jill Cottrell, K. I. Vibute, and Rahamatullah Khan for their comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Motion for Presenting an Address to the President of India for the Removal of Mr
    1 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTING AN ADDRESS TO THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA FOR THE REMOVAL OF MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA, CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, UNDER ARTICLE 217 READ WITH 124 (4) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA THIS HOUSE RESOLVES that an address be presented to the President of India for the removal of Mr. Justice Dipak Misra, from the office of Chief Justice of India, for his following acts of misbehaviour, detailed in the Explanatory Note annexed herewith: I. The facts and circumstances relating to the Prasad Education Trust case, show prima facie evidence suggesting that Chief Justice Dipak Misra may have been involved in the conspiracy of paying illegal gratification in the case, which at least warrants a thorough investigation. II. That the Chief Justice Dipak Misra dealt on the administrative as well as judicial side, with a writ petition which sought an investigation into a matter in which he too was likely to fall within the scope of investigation since he had presided over every bench which had dealt with this case and passed orders in the case of Prasad Education Trust, and thus violated the first principle of the Code of Conduct for judges. III. That the Chief Justice Dipak Misra appears to have antedated an administrative order dated 6th November 2017 which amounts to a serious act of forgery/fabrication. IV. That Chief Justice Dipak Misra acquired land while he was an advocate, by giving an affidavit that was found to be false and despite the orders of the ADM cancelling the allotment in 1985, surrendered the said land only in 2012 after he was elevated to the Supreme Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Sabarimala Temple Dedicated To
    REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3358/2018 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 373/2006 KANTARU RAJEEVARU ….PETITIONER(S) VERSUS INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) WITH R.P.(C) NO. 3359/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006; DIARY NO(S). 37946/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006; R.P.(C) NO. 3469/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006; DIARY NO(S). 38135/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006; DIARY NO(S). 38136/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006; R.P.(C) NO. 3449/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006 W.P.(C) NO. 1285/2018 R.P.(C) NO. 3470/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006 R.P.(C) NO. 3380/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006 R.P.(C) NO. 3379/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006 R.P.(C) NO. 3444/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006 R.P.(C) NO. 3462/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006 DIARY NO(S). 38764/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006; DIARY NO(S). 38769/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006; 1 DIARY NO(S). 38907/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006; R.P.(C) NO. 3377/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 373/2006 DIARY NO(S). 39023/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006; DIARY NO(S). 39135/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.373/2006; DIARY NO(S).
    [Show full text]
  • “Let Your Yes Be Yes”: Progressing Toward Female Ordination in the Mar Thoma Church Pushpa Samuel
    “Let Your Yes Be Yes”: Progressing Toward Female Ordination in the Mar Thoma Church Pushpa Samuel A law is only effective if it is implemented, even as a church’s Cultural and Religious Overview of Patriarchy position on theological issues does not further its mission if there The cultural landscape of India has contributed to a perception is no corresponding practice. In 1986, the Mar Thoma Church of women as subservient to men, both in the home and society. officially stated that there is no theological barrier to ordaining Understanding the depth of this history helps to situate the slow both men and women to serve the church. However, there are change in the Mar Thoma Church in the centuries of India’s currently no ordained females within the global Mar Thoma struggle for gender equality. After Muslims established their Church. Why is there such a dissonance between doctrine and presence in India in the eighth century, there was a sharp decline praxis? To study this dissonance, it is important to compare in women’s education, and segregation (purdah) was introduced and contrast the Mar Thoma Church with the Roman Catholic Church and Church of South India (CSI), two other prominent to shield women from men.2 Purdah is not only physical segregation from males, but also concealment through clothing. churches in India that also have a global presence.1 Other Indian cultural restrictions toward women include widow The formation of the Catholic Church, the CSI Church, and the Mar Thoma Church has played a key role in the spread of burning (sati), child marriage, and female infanticide.3 Although Christianity in India, and each has a distinct view of women’s roles these practices have occurred in several other Asian countries, within the church, specifically concerning female ordination.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Sabharwal's Defence Becomes Murkier
    JUSTICE SABHARWAL’S DEFENCE BECOMES MURKIER: STIFLING PUBLIC EXPOSURE BY USING CONTEMPT POWERS Press Release: New Delhi 19th September 2007 Justice Sabharwal finally broke his silence in a signed piece in the Times of India. His defence proceeds by ignoring and sidestepping the inconvenient and emphasizing the irrelevant if it can evoke sympathy. To examine the adequacy of his defence, we need to see his defence against the gravamen of each charge against him. Charge No. 1. That his son’s companies had shifted their registered offices to his official residence. Justice Sabharwal’s response: That as soon as he came to know he ordered his son’s to shift it back. Our Rejoinder: This is False. In April 2007, in a recorded interview with the Midday reporter M.K. Tayal he feigned total ignorance of the shifting of the offices to his official residence. In fact, the registered offices were shifted back from his official residence to his Punjabi Bagh residence exactly on the day that the BPTP mall developers became his sons partners, making it very risky to continue at his official residence. Copies of the document showing the date of induction of Kabul Chawla, the promoter and owner of BPTP in Pawan Impex Pvt. Ltd., one of the companies of Jutstice Sabharwal’s sons, and Form no. 18 showing the shifting of the registered office from the official residence of Justice Sabharwal to his family residence on 23rd October 2004. Charge No. 2: That he called for and dealt with the sealing of commercial property case in March 2005, though it was not assigned to him.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Ideals and Justice in Plural Societies
    L10-2016 Justice MN Venkatachaliah Born on 25th October 1929, he entered the general practice of the law in MN Venkatachaliah the year 1951 at Bangalore after obtaining University degrees in Science and law. Justice Venkatachaliah was appointed Judge of the high court of Karnataka in the year 1975 and later as Judge of the Supreme Court of India in the year 1987. He was appointed Chief Justice of India in February 1993 and held that office till his retirement in October 1994. Justice Venkatachaliah was appointed Chairman, National Human Rights Commission in 1996 and held that office till October 1999. He was nominated Chairman of the National commission to Review the Working of the Constitution in March 2000 and the National Commission gave its CONSTITUTIONAL IDEALS AND Report to the Government of India in March 2002. He was conferred “Padma Vibhushan” on 26th January 2004 by the Government of India. JUSTICE IN PLURAL SOCIETIES Justice Venkatachaliah has been associated with a number of social, cultural and service organizations. He is the Founder President of the Sarvodya International Trust. He is the Founder Patron of the “Society for Religious Harmony and Universal Peace “ New Delhi. He was Tagore Law NIAS FOUNDATION DAY LECTURE 2016 Professor of the Calcutta University. He was the chairman of the committee of the Indian Council for Medical Research to draw-up “Ethical Guidelines for Bio-Genetic research Involving Human Subjects”. Justice Venkatachaliah is the President of the Public Affairs Centre and President of the Indian Institute of World Culture. He was formerly Chancellor of the Central University of Hyderabad.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hon'ble Mr Justice Y K Sabharwal
    n 052 im 002 Delhi’s Moot Court Hall named after alumnus Chief Justice of India 14.01.2016 The Hon’ble Mr Justice Y K Sabharwal Mr Justice Y K Sabharwal BA Hons 1961 Hindu LLB 1964 36th Chief Justice of India 1999 – 2000 Former Judge High Court of Delhi Chief Justice High Court of Bombay Passed away 03.07.2015 Jaitley inaugurates Y K Sabharwal Moot Court hall at National Law University Delhi NEW DELHI: Union finance minister Arun Jaitley on Thursday recalled late former Chief Justice of India YK Sabharwal as one of the rare judges who was not only fair but also fearless. He had the “ability to strike” when it was required, the Minister said. Speaking at the inauguration of a moot court hall in Delhi’s National Law University (NLU) — dedicated to the former CJI , Jaitley said Justice Sabharwal was a tough judge but never sat on the bench with fixated views. “He had no likes or dislikes and had no friends in court. But his personality outside was totally different,” Jaitley reminisced, recalling his association with the former CJI who made tremendous contribution to the field of Law through his judgements. Some of the important verdicts delivered by him included declaring President’s Rule in Bihar unconstitutional and opening to judicial review the laws placed in the Ninth Schedule. A Moot Court Hall in his name in a premier law school was a fit dedication to the former CJI, Jaitley said. The Minister added : “A specialised Moot Court hall is a rare speciality and for a law school to have one is commendable.” Justice Dalveer Bhandari, Judge of International Court of Justice, spoke of how moot courts had become an integral part of legal education.
    [Show full text]
  • Commendation by Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah
    M. N. VENKATACHALIAH A COMMENDATION OF IIAM COMMUNITY MEDIATION SERVICE VISUALIZED BY THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ARBITRATION & MEDIATION. The Indian Institute of Arbitration & Mediation (IIAM), a registered society, has innovated an extremely effective idea of a decentralized, socially oriented and inexpensive Dispute Resolution Mechanism to serve the needs of the common people obviating their recourse to more expensive, embittering and protracted litigations in the courts of law. The formal dispute resolution mechanisms are wholly inappropriate to the aspirations and needs of the common people for speedy justice. I had the privilege of being on the Advisory Board of IIAM along with Mr. Justice J.S. Verma, Former Chief Justice of India, Mr. Justice K.S. Paripoornan, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Former Cabinet Secretary & Former Governor of Jharkhand, Dr. Madhav Mehra, President of World Council for Corporate Governance, UK, Dr. Abid Hussain, Former Ambassador to the US, Mr. Sudarshan Agarwal, Former Governor of Sikkim, Dr. G. Mohan Gopal, Director of the National Judicial Academy and Mr. Michael McIlwrath, Chairman, International Mediation Institute, The Hague. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India inaugurated the “IIAM Community Mediation Service” on the 17th of January 2009 at New Delhi. Every participant extolled the great potential of this innovative scheme to bring justice to the doors of the common man under a scheme which provides for voluntary participation with the assistance of experienced lawyers, retired judges, former civil servants and other public spirited people who will act as mediators to bring about a just and mutually acceptable solution to potentially litigative situations.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom of Religion and the Indian Supreme Court: The
    FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND THE INDIAN SUPREME COURT: THE RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION AND ESSENTIAL PRACTICES TESTS A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN RELIGION MAY 2019 By Coleman D. Williams Thesis Committee: Ramdas Lamb, Chairperson Helen Baroni Ned Bertz Abstract As a religiously diverse society and self-proclaimed secular state, India is an ideal setting to explore the complex and often controversial intersections between religion and law. The religious freedom clauses of the Indian Constitution allow for the state to regulate and restrict certain activities associated with religious practice. By interpreting the constitutional provisions for religious freedom, the judiciary plays an important role in determining the extent to which the state can lawfully regulate religious affairs. This thesis seeks to historicize the related development of two jurisprudential tests employed by the Supreme Court of India: the religious denomination test and the essential practices test. The religious denomination test gives the Court the authority to determine which groups constitute religious denominations, and therefore, qualify for legal protection. The essential practices test limits the constitutional protection of religious practices to those that are deemed ‘essential’ to the respective faith. From their origins in the 1950s up to their application in contemporary cases on religious freedom, these two tests have served to limit the scope of legal protection under the Constitution and legitimize the interventionist tendencies of the Indian state. Additionally, this thesis will discuss the principles behind the operation of the two tests, their most prominent criticisms, and the potential implications of the Court’s approach.
    [Show full text]