Está en la página 1de 11


S e - Clarion Of Dalit - Weekly Newspaper On Web
Working For The Rights & Survival Of The Oppressed
Editor: NAGARAJA.M.R… VOL.10 issue.52…… .04 / 01 / 2017

Traitors in

Indian Judiciary & Police

Crimes by Khaki ,

Editorial : JAIL the Police & Judges
- Human Rights Violations by Judges & Police

The public servants & the government must be role models in law abiding acts , for others to emulate & follow. if a student makes a mistake it
is excusable & can be corrected by the teacher. if the teacher himself makes a mistake , all his students will do the same mistake. if a thief
steals , he can be caught , legally punished & reformed . if a police himself commits crime , many thieves go scot-free under his patronage.
even if a police , public servant commits a crime , he can be legally prosecuted & justice can be sought by the aggrieved. just think , if a
judge himself that too of apex court of the land himself commits crime - violations of RTI Act , constitutional rights & human rights of public
and obstructs the public from performing their constitutional fundamental duties , what happens ?
Public Interest Litigation is an appeal for justice to the courts , to redress the injustices meted out to the public. Individual cases of
injustices pertaining to an individual are not covered under PIL, however an individual an activist who is fighting for public
causes suffering injustices as a result of his struggle ,caused by powers that be to silence him can club his individual case under the
public causes (PIL ) he is appealing.

Nowadays people of questionable character , integrity are being selected to public posts , end result is present day india. In the following
web sites I have shown few actual cases of crimes by judges & police , just imagine what type of justice common man gets.
Traitors in Indian Judiciary & Police
Crimes by Khaki ,
Police show full bravery , courage , use full might of law while acting against innocents , commoners. Even takes suo motto action.
Frequently crosses legal limits while acting against commoners like 3rd degree torture , arrest / search , seizure without warrant , arrest in
mid night , etc . While they are supposed to take action against rich crooks , their own corrupt colleagues no suo motto action , delayed
action inspite of complaint allowing time for rich crook to get anticipatory bail , no 3 rd degree torture on him , no arrest , search , seizure
without warrant. Where is the bravery , courage of police ?
Judges show their full wisdom , apply rigid law book while judging cases of commoners , take suo motto action where as cases involving
rich crooks comes before them inspite of repeated PILs they don’t consider it , let alone take suo motto action. Judges make far fetched
interpretations of law , ultimately benefitting the rich crook. Where is the wisdom of Judges ?

if a police himself commits crime . then alone . No man shall be condemned unheard (AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM). just think .K.A. public service. Justices Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla. Bobde. Day after day we are seeing allegations against judges in crimes against women . that is exactly what is happening in india. There is total secrecy in the functioning of judiciary in india with regards to disciplinary proceedings . what action taken against the guilty judges ? Hereby . judicial orders for money . Judges & Police themselves must first learn to respect human beings as human beings. if a judge himself that too of apex court of the land himself commits crime . democratically must oppose this criminalization of judiciary . Your’s Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi Access to Justice is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 & 21 of Constitution: SC Constitution Bench The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that access to Justice is a Fundamental Right guaranteed to citizens by Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of . No man can be judge in his own cause (NEMO DEBET ESSE JUDEX IN PROPRIA SUA CAUSA). even if a police . public servant commits a crime . criminals in public service to commit more crimes. he can be caught .S. Judges & Police must do their constitutional duties without bias . Regard for the public welfare is the highest law (SALUS POPULI EST SUPREMA LEX). Sikri. and R. Banumathi has made the above observation while answering a reference to it. if a student makes a mistake it is excusable & can be corrected by the teacher. An act of the Court or public office shall prejudice no man (ACTUS CURIAE NEMINEM GRAVABIT). the educated public must raise to the occasion & peacefully . The five Judge Bench comprising of Chief Justice of India T. what happens ? It gives a booster dose to the rich & mighty . police & public service who are an exception. refer following case details and act : Traitors in Judiciary & Police https://www. we demand code of conduct for judges & police with provision of criminal prosecution of violators. which arose from Transfer Petitions. if the teacher himself makes a mistake . A.violations of RTI Act . for others to emulate & follow. Thakur. if a thief steals . many thieves go scot-free under his patronage. legally punished & reformed . those in power . eleven seeking transfer of civil cases from or to the State of Jammu and Kashmir while the remaining two seek transfer of criminal cases from the State to Courts . all his students will do the same mistake. promotions and selection of judges. The public servants & the government must be role models in law abiding acts . constitutional rights & human rights of public and obstructs the public from performing their constitutional fundamental duties . On the D Day in the Almighty’s court corrupt judges & police will face ultimate punishment . etc in the media.Our whole hearted respects to honest few in judiciary . We the public don’t know whether proper investigation / enquiry is done in such cases of allegations against judges . Or else the almighty will ensure DOG’S DEATH to corrupt judges & police. he can be legally prosecuted & justice can be sought by the aggrieved.scribd. sex crimes . we can build a RAM RAJYA OF MAHATMA GANDHI'S DREAM. no match fixing. When you treat them like animals they will also reciprocate do remember. S.

be a constitutional value of any significance and utility only if the delivery of justice to the citizen is speedy. for otherwise. in itself be just and fair and in keeping with the well recognized principles of natural justice. for if the trial of a citizen goes on endlessly his right to life itself is violated. In Sheela Barse’s case (supra) this Court declared speedy trial as a facet of right to life. no hesitation in holding that access to justice is indeed a facet of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. awareness. Article 21 of the Constitution apart. However. if not. Access to Justice would. the right to access to justice is no more than a hollow slogan of no use or inspiration for the citizen. on the other. therefore. access to justice remains a big question mark on account of delays in the completion of the process of adjudication on account of poor judge population and judge case ratio in comparison to other countries. the Bench added. access to justice can be said to be part of the guarantee contained in Article 14 as well. Justice delayed. (iv) The process of adjudication must be affordable to the disputants: Access to justice will again be no more than an illusion if the adjudicatory mechanism provided is so expensive as to deter a disputant from taking resort to the same. Tribunal or Authority may adopt for adjudication. It is heartening to note that over the past six decades or so the number of courts established in the country has increased manifold in comparison to the number that existed on the day the country earned its freedom. laborious.outside that State. therefore. If the process of administration of justice is so time consuming. on the one hand. Article 39-A of the Constitution promotes a laudable objective of providing legal aid to needy litigants and obliges the State to make access to justice affordable for the less fortunate sections of the society.V. “We have. must. be reasonably accessible in terms of distance for access to justice since so much depends upon the ability of the litigant to place his/her grievance effectively before the court/tribunal/court/competent authority to grant such a relief. CJAR Demands In-House Enquiry Against Justice C. fair and objective in its approach. the increase in literacy. and civil suit. In terms of accessibility from the point of view of distance which a citizen ought to travel. is justice denied. indolent and frustrating for those who seek justice that it dissuades or deters them from even considering resort to that process as an option. While the States have done their bit in terms of providing the basic adjudicatory mechanisms for disposal of resolution of civil or criminal conflicts. the mechanism so provided must not only be effective but must also be just. (ii) The mechanism must be conveniently accessible in terms of distance: The forum/mechanism so provided must. Absence of any adjudicatory mechanism or the inadequacy of such mechanism. Nagarjuna Reddy For Alleged Atrocities Against Dalits BY: APOORVA MANDHANI In a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India. Commission or Authority or called by any other name whatsoever. In order that the right of a citizen to access justice is protected. we have come a long way since the time the British left the country. having regard to the hierarchy of courts/tribunals. There is today almost invariably a court of Civil Judge junior or senior division in every taluka and a District and Sessions Judge in every district. the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms has sought initiation of an In-House enquiry against Justice C. is bound to prevent those looking for enforcement of their right to equality before laws and equal protection of the laws from seeking redress and thereby negate the guarantee of equality before laws or equal protection of laws and reduce it to a mere teasing illusion. there is no juristic or other basis for holding that denial of “access to justice” will not affect the quality of human life so as to take access to justice out of the purview of right to life guaranteed under Article 21. Nagarjuna Reddy for alleged . more severe impact on a citizen’s life or the quality of it. needless to say. for ought we know that civil disputes can at times have an equally. it is famously said. The Citizen’s inability to access courts or any other adjudicatory mechanism provided for determination of rights and obligations is bound to result in denial of the guarantee contained in Article 14 both in relation to equality before law as well as equal protection of laws. where a citizen can agitate his grievance and seek adjudication of what he may perceive as a breach of his right by another citizen or by the State or any one of its instrumentalities. Tribunal. So also the procedure which the court. There is jurisprudentially no qualitative difference between denial of speedy trial in a criminal case. “Access to justice” as a constitutional value will be a mere illusion if justice is not speedy.V. appeal or other proceedings. it would tantamount to denial of not only access to justice but justice itself. prosperity and proliferation of laws has made the process of adjudication slow and time consuming primarily on account of the over worked and under staffed judicial system.”. ESSENCE OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE According to the Bench the following are the four main facets that constitute the essence of access to justice (i) The need for adjudicatory mechanism: One of the most fundamental requirements for providing to the citizens access to justice is to set-up an adjudicatory mechanism whether described as a Court. (iii) The process of adjudication must be speedy. The Bench further observed that if “life” implies not only life in the physical sense but a bundle of rights that makes life worth living. which is crying for creation of additional courts with requisite human resources and infrastructure to effectively deal with an ever increasing number of cases being filed in the courts and mounting backlog of over thirty million cases in the subordinate courts.

It has also been alleged that the Magistrate was later summoned to Justice Reddy’s house. The dying declaration had incriminated Mr. (c) change the process of removal of judges. Pavan Kumar Reddy is the Additional Public Prosecutor at Rayachoti courts. and submitted a written complaint. errant judges may be transferred. from a dying declaration recorded by Mr. The Constitution provides that judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court can be removed only by Parliament on the basis of a motion in either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha. he would have been shown the door by now. Misconducting judges BY: SAUMYA DEV Recently. and (e) require the declaration of assets of judges. Let us hope that the impending the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill. Justice Karnan. Rayachoti. Justice Reddy purportedly threatened and abused Mr. Rayachoti. the public may protest. It is interesting to study the allegations of misconduct of members of the Constitutional Courts. or are those areas any less a part of India? These questions remain yet to be answered. in Kadappa District is the native place of Justice C. the avenues well within the four corners of judicial conduct expected from a constitutional functionary. The representation refers to allegations of Dalit atrocities and criminal misconduct by the Judge against Mr. country witnessed the most unimaginable act of bravado from a sitting judge of a High Court. 2010 may address many areas of concern. In an affidavit filed in Supreme Court by Shanti Bhushan.Rama Krishna. Mr. On the other hand. Krishna had alleged that he was forced by Justice Reddy to remove the name of Mr. Pavan Kumar Reddy who happens to be the brother of Justice Reddy. Pavan Kumar Reddy. when he refused to remove his brother’s name from the dying declaration. sitting judge of the same court. Is such High Courts any inferior. 1968 The 2010 Bill replaces the Judges (Inquiry) Act. No action can seemingly be taken against a sitting judge when he decides to barge into court room whilst the proceedings are in force and hurl allegations. which mandates that a person who has been practicing as an advocate for not less than seven years is eligible to be appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor. There is a general perception in the judicial community that High Court Benches of NorthEastern States are meant for accommodating such judges. He had many other avenues to channelize his feelings. It is also alleged that subsequent to the recording of the declaration. where he was beaten up and abused. Lawyers may boycott. CJAR therefore demands that an in-house enquiry be initiated and that pending enquiry. Kadappa District. We have enough provisions for disciplining the subordinate judiciary. made a shocking allegation that 8 out 16 Chief Justices we had. vigilante namesake committee could be set. there are two possibilities before the . Nagarjuna Reddy and his brother Mr. (d) enable minor disciplinary measures to be taken against judges. currently under suspension. no disciplinary action can be taken against the judges of the Supreme Court and High Court. Recommendation for appointment of 12 judges by the collegium in the Madras High Court was questioned by Advocates and their Writ Petition was being heard by a Bench comprising of Justices V Dhanapalan and K Sasidharan. Furthermore.atrocities against the Dalit community. a man not unknown to controversies. and nothing beyond. the High Court is vested with power of superintendence. the representation alleges that the appointment of Justice Reddy’s brother as the Additional Public Prosecutor was in contravention of the provisions of Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code. who were indulged in illegal acts.V. misplacing court records and making files disappear. The existing procedure for investigation into allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity of Supreme Court and High Court judges is given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act. 1968 and avowed objects are (a) create enforceable standards for the conduct of judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court. (b) change the existing mechanism for investigation into allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity of judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court. Had been a member of subordinate judiciary. allegedly disclosing that he had doused him with kerosene and set him on fire for not agreeing to sign on a blank paper. A complaint was also filed with the Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High court and the Chief Justice of India. Misconduct of Judges of High Court and Supreme Court is a problem with no tangible solution so far. former Principal Junior Civil Judge. were corrupt. The representation further makes reference to a series of unexplained transfers and suspension. barged into the courtroom and started making allegations in open court expressing his objections to the manner of appointment of those 12 judges. And even this form of punishment and its form of implementation will not fail to amuse one for its absurdity. claiming that he was being harassment for complaining against Justice Reddy and his brothers. unrealistic impeachment proceedings may be initiated. Listing down several other instances of nepotism and Dalit atrocities. In the light of such a revelation. Studying such instances gives an insight into faulty foundation of our judicial system. other than transferring him to another High Court. And yet he chose this convenient option of whimsical conduct. This requirement was not fulfilled in the case of Mr. No action was however taken by the High Court on the said complaint. no judicial work be allotted to Justice Reddy. namingvarious Officers of Court at Rayachoty. which effectively demean such High Courts. Rama Krishna when he was posted as Magistrate in Rayachoti. The Magistrate then approached the High Court Vigilance Registrar. Senior Advocate who was the Union Law Minister in post emergency period. Pavan Kumar Reddy. Krishna.

overnight change is not possible. which instance is worse. the ‘obedient bar’ religiously followed for the fear of displeasing their lordships. nephew. And while one may be tempted to argue that it is impossible to completely dispense with discretion. A new form of misconduct has born these days. It is obviously an ugly seen to watch a designated Senior Lawyer appearing only in one particular court in many matters when he is not engaged in other courts. delay in delivering judgments etc. the Judges commenting on their own judgments post retirement. There are many undefined misconducts such as Retiring judges delivering judgments in haste or not delivering judgments at all. 1999’ a code of conduct adopted for the judges. be impartial in their judgments or actions while the proceedings are going on. The press is silent in such aspects for fear of contempt power which is is exploited to bury criticism. They have to be well versed and conversant with the facts of the case and permit unbiased hearing from both sides. father-in-law. grandfather. mother. Why so ? The root of the problem lies in selection method of judges. are in practice in the same High Court. What is depressing is that majority of Senior Lawyers swallow such ignominy without a murmur. Vyai Singh (AIR 1992 SC 642). Judges have to abide by the principles of natural justice. but lawyers for professional sake condone it and move on. sister. Their act cannot prejudice the course of justice or life of any man. judiciary must have a known system to govern and Court hours should not be judge centric. They have to be consistent in their conduct. We must have uniform court procedure. act. Somnath Chatterjee. personal bias or whimsical behavior. There are criticisms on the exercise of contempt jurisdiction. and it is always judge centric. They have to rise above narrow considerations and not be prone to external influences or political pressures. Rules and discipline are made by judges according to their personal choice and no one can even beg to differ with the ways of their lordships. Though it caused great inconvenience to the lawyers. is thoroughly non-judicial and condemnable. mother-in-law. either convict Shanti Bhshan or order investigation against those 8. In many instances.So while in the case of P N Dudav v P Shiv Shankar (AIR 1988 SC 1208 at 1213). The Bar Council of India Rules. say.Court to salvage the prestige of Indian judiciary. Contempt for one judge need not be contempt for another. wife. Judges remarks to arguments of a lawyer that “don’t give lecture to us”. was a rather unwarranted affair. It has now become a common feature in Courts to see Judges and Lawyers argue in a heated atmosphere and judges use words not befitting to the seat they occupy. as the same could potentially interfere with the precedential value of the judgmen. 2002. He has his colleague advocates – both senior and junior – as well as his kith and kin. Whatever may be the reasons justifications for continued late sitting. Both are not happening in reality except a slow moving contempt proceedings. for 20-25 years and is appointed a Judge in the same High Court.The equity demands that the justice shall not only be done but should also appear to have been done… In any case. Chapter II mandate that an advocate shall not enter appearance. some lawyers are more equal before some judges. the judges. Judges after having rendered judgments become functus officio in reference to those judgments and should not come up with comments post their retirement. “Often we hear complaints about ‘Uncle Judges’. 1975 in Rule 6. It is difficult to bring in such misconducts within a legislative framework and find solution. Recently. it would be worthwhile to remind ourselves of the fact that judicial discretion coupled with judicial misconduct and the knowledge that one could get away with the same. What really amounts to judicial conduct as embossed in the Oath of the judges as given in the third schedule of the constitution. who had been practising with him. They have to mandatorily follow the procedure established by law. if the sole or any member thereof is related to the advocate as father. Judges should realize that their proximity in some manner is being professionally encashed by a shameless lawyer. Justice A K Ganguly’s startling rejoinder clarifying and defending the 2G judgment after the same was critized by Lok Sabha speaker. . by the judges or the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. brother-in-law daughter-in-law or sister-in-law. son. in the case of Mohd Zahir Khan V. Even wards of some District Judges. It was only after a mass uproar that truth became an exception to the Contempt of Courts Act. This will eliminate “Uncle Judge”. If a person has practised in a High Court. It is a common knowledge that in every court in the country. Tribunal or Authority. There have been incidents of exorbitant display of rage by the judges acting in impulse against the lawyers. What ultimately matters is the quality of men and women.. We have seen Punjab and Haryana High Court judges taking mass casual leave to protest against it’s then Chief Justice who allegedly withdrew cases from the board of judges without their notice. uncle. should not be posted in the same High Court. They cannot act upon personal idiosyncrasies. the judge’s kith and kin become biggest tax payers and busy practitioners during their serving period. the CJI arbitrarily withdrawing cases or the judges resorting to such tactics without paying regard to the court decorum. first cousin. thanks to the media. husband. Now let us consider the real world scenario. brother. Unending cross examinations or infinite arguments cannot form a part of the platter of a judge. a poor man was charged with contempt for calling the judiciary with the same label. It saddening to see that many judges of our constitutional courts behave without grace and majesty expected from them. In the Apex Court. elevated to a High Court. It may be difficult to decide here. whose kith and kin are practising in a High Court. or the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life. a national daily reported habit of late sitting of a sitting Supreme Court judge. niece. a cabinet minister was let go off even when he called the judiciary to be full of anti social elements. Most often. We need to develop a uniform court procedure and eliminate the personality driven functioning of Judges. some of the Judges had imposed a Rule that ‘ no Passover for the first ten matters’. son-in-law. daughter. would be a lethal weapon for judicial disarray. grand-son. A judge has to dissociate himself of all forms of social interactions with persons involved with the case. Our courts should be more open to public scrutiny. aunt. plead or practice in any way before a court. The video recording of court procedure is a good measure to make our judges . The law commission in its 230th report has criticized this practice of Uncle Judges.

the entire exchange centred merely on this. It is hard to do that when it relates to important tenets of civil society like Rule of Law and the Sanctity of Justice. Recentring the people in all these discussions can turn the current crisis into an occasion to create systemic. arguably at the expense of civil society and its stake in appointments. Judiciary has fiercely guarded its independence. It is humanly not possible to remember every word and submissions in all matters and the causality is non consideration of certain points while rendering the judgment. Thus it is time that there is someone who could judge these erring and despotic Judges. senior leaders on both sides spent the day insinuating that the other had overstepped its bounds by trying to control appointments (Choudhary 2016). it is not a sufficient check. This myopia is evident throughout the history of their struggle into the present-day: neither has focused on making information public. We the People Reimagining Judicial Reform When the judiciary and the centre argue about the need for transparency and accountability. Contested Constitutional Space The debate between the judiciary and the executive has always centred on primacy. May be as evidenced above. which sets out criteria for judicial appointments. for its part. This is even though an alarming number of seats have remained vacant across courts for years before the NJAC case—a failure for which the judiciary is equally responsible. who should presumably be the centre of all constitutional debates—boundaries that bar access to both information and justice. it seems that both the centre and the judiciary envision these as duties only towards each other. even as this is becoming more commonplace worldwide. for instance. The centre. let alone thought of other ways to involve a broad cross section of the people. ever since the former struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). Constitution Day became the latest front in one of the most hotly debated constitutional battles in our history—the tussle between the judiciary and executive over judicial appointments. even as this is becoming more commonplace worldwide.and lawyers more accountable. if not bestowed with the right men and women. They often say “What cannot be cured must be endured”. Unlimited and unchecked judicial power. This year. is bound to cause mischief. and judges protesting perceived threats to their independence (Divan 2013). in which the Supreme Court interpreted constitutional provisions on judicial appointment. We argue that in bandying about the need for transparency and accountability. signifying the separation of powers between the two branches. In that . and not towards society generally. The first judges’ case came to the Court after a bitter period in judiciary–executive relations. As has become a familiar pattern. the main issue was which branch of government had greater control. while helpfully clarifying that it is not playing any “blame game” (Indian Express 2016). In all the landmark judges’ cases. While the Supreme Court rather uncharacteristically solicited suggestions for the framing of the MoP from bar associations and civil society groups. lasting change. it seems that both envision these as duties only towards each other. the current MoP that is being negotiated between the two branches remains under wraps. which the latter had proposed to replace the judicial collegium in making appointments. Supreme Court judges have repeatedly blamed the centre for overburdening courts by delaying appointments. we see little sense of either branch’s responsibility to the people. In the ensuing deadlock over pending high court appointments and finalisation of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP). Rule of law indeed mandates the same. And yet a proper judicial mechanism for addressing the judicial complaints is consistent with the principles of judicial independence. Using the rather odd metaphor of constitutional Lakshman Rekhas. This myopia is evident throughout the history of their struggle into the present-day: neither branch of government has focused on making information public. In the words of Justice M N Venkatachaliah “Sunlight is the best defense”. making it clear that public consultation on the MoP is not a priority for either (LiveLaw 2016). or neglecting to assess judicial merit regularly. unless judges take note of it. let alone thought of other ways to involve a broad cross section of the people. In continuously trying to blame each other for various woes in judicial administration. Such an absence of people-centred measures marks most of the exchanges between the judiciary and executive in the last year. both have neglected to acknowledge their own failures—in clogging up courts with excessive litigation. Code of Ethics is a self regulatory tool. We don’t have the system of recording of arguments. In this seemingly singular focus on trying to pass responsibility to the other. has blamed the high courts for delaying the appointments process and the MoP. and there was little discussion of the boundaries that matter most to common people. with the executive making controversial appointments and transfers. and not towards society generally.

But the narrow framing of civil society’s role. and accountability. and welcome comments from the general public as well (Opiyo 2011. giving primacy to the judiciary to protect its independence and insulating it from political interference (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association & Anr v Union of India. Much later. following the NJAC judgment. to give some space to public participation (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Ors v Union of India. With the rest of the country being kept in the dark as to the exact nature of these complaints and their resolution. to demonstrate real commitment to the oft-repeated buzzwords of transparency. legitimising her appointment. Yet others like South Africa even accept nominations from the public. Moving beyond Appointments The anxiety over ceding primacy to the other has sidelined measures either branch can take. Since 2003. in addition to judicial and executive representatives. the centre clarified its objections to news agencies in extremely vague phrases such as “serious complaints” and “adverse intelligence reports. to make proceedings participatory. and has purposefully resisted providing related information as well. 1993. how can the judiciary or the executive hope to retain public trust and legitimacy in the eyes of the people? This is in sharp contrast to several other countries like Argentina and the United Kingdom (UK). but they have also failed to imagine going beyond this. compiles detailed statistics on its appointments. and mandated the government to publish these in leading newspapers and official outlets (Herrero and López 2010).” The collegium reiterated almost all of the returned names within a week. leaving little time for the reconsideration it had been asked to carry out. In the second and third judges’ case. While this seems like an obvious measure. In re: Appointment and Transfer of Judges). In the UK. the Judicial Appointments Commission regularly advertises vacancies. enabling people’s active participation in appointment processes (University of Cape Town 2010). Opaque and Exclusionary Appointments The problem with such a narrow debate is that even if the two branches were to resolve their dispute overnight. University of Cape Town 2010). by arguing that disclosure of information under RTI could interfere with judicial independence (Bhushan 2009). uploads minutes of meetings on selection mechanisms and so forth. it recently returned 43 to the judiciary for reconsideration. This question is still pending. and the suggested mode of appointment of these eminent persons. and not necessarily the people. or it could allow academics. Even if our judicial appointment processes were to make room for civil society inputs. the apex court reversed this ruling and elaborated the collegium procedures that currently govern appointments. The centre has not been much better at making appointment-related information public. without divulging any reasons to the public. independence. independent of each other. and potential conflicts. the judiciary has managed to keep itself out of the purview of the Right to Information (“RTI”) Act for over 10 years. While some appointments or judiciary-related information might certainly be too sensitive to make public. it was only after facing intense pressure from the public and from some judges for years that the Supreme Court began uploading its judges’ assets on the Court website. Civil society received slightly greater attention in the NJAC or fourth judges’ case since. 1981). where publicising appointments-related information is a minimum requirement. Encouraging broad-based participation has evident benefits: it could reveal that a wide section of lawyers support a candidate’s integrity. For instance. it is unlikely that either transparency or accountability would improve meaningfully for the public. employers. indicates that the key concern for both remains control. came with its own set of problems. 2015). Argentina has required judicial nominees to disclose their assets. Despite not being covered under any exception. In countries such as Kenya and the United States. instead of selectively keeping some data classified and opening up debate on this classification. or even litigants to raise concerns about her commitment to constitutional values. The judiciary has never made such information public. the Indian judiciary has responded to this concern by systematically blocking all access to information. Both the judiciary and executive in India have not only failed to implement this minimum and make appointment proceedings publicly and was referred to a Constitution Bench earlier this year (India Today 2016). the commission comprised two eminent laypersons. Remarkably. merit. attaining even this would be a significant achievement in the Indian context. The few people-oriented measures in current discourse are limited to talk of disclosing information on candidates recommended for appointment and publishing minutes of appointment proceedings. the behaviour of the centre and Supreme Court collegium. Of the 77 names recommended by the collegium for high court appointments. in response to a crisis of confidence in the judiciary. it would be impossible for the public to have informed opinions on a judge’s suitability in the absence of systematic and transparent performance evaluation. Assessing judicial performance through periodic reviews is a common practice . and current law dictates that reiterated judges must be appointed (Times of India 2016). and allow the media and any member of the public to sit in on interviews of candidates. government bodies invite law associations to evaluate judicial candidates. civil society organisations. the Supreme Court held that the executive’s view would prevail over the chief justice’s in matters of judicial transfer and appointment (S P Gupta v President of India & Ors.

The higher judiciary’s actions. For this reason alone. there is one woman judge in the apex court out of 24. An exact breakdown for caste composition is not available. Legitimacy Any democratic institution in a deeply divided society derives its legitimacy in the eyes of the public from its representation and inclusiveness. by providing a robust feedback mechanism to litigants and lawyers. and their promotions are supposed to be based on merit. But of the four pillars of the Technology for Justice Initiative (a part of the larger Digital India project)—namely. while higher-caste judges with lower grading continued on the service (Umar 2011). seem to suggest that while it expects accountability from other organs of government. For instance. and gendered expectations of career choice. and in the Indian lower judiciary. have ensured that women and people from socially and economically marginalised groups remain underrepresented in the judiciary. Further. there were no SC chief justices in the high courts either (Chhibber 2016). the public can rightly question its legitimacy and authority in claiming to uphold civil society’s interests. which suffer from some imperfections—such as a lack of uniformity and objectivity—but it provides a framework for assessing judges on various objective and subjective criteria. For decades. While recommending candidates. Granted. though certain figures can shed light on the larger picture. so that they can contribute to the evaluations. judges have been informally advised to duly consider suitable candidates from amongst Other Backward Classes (OBCs). where a reported 70% of all sitting high court judges come from the same 132 families. but if its internal elevation does not reflect the same self-professed commitment. it does not hold itself to the same standard. which makes it hard to place complete confidence in the fact that deserving. and as of May 2016. The latest data for high courts. and presently. Proactive measures are necessary to change modes of judicial training. minorities and women. eCourts. expedite justice–delivery. But despite several calls for such measures in this year alone. The executive too has failed to capitalise on opportunities underlying its stalemate with the judiciary. the executive has limited control over judicial matters. whose ability to adjudicate has previously not been subject to review. the government has issued documents recognising the potential of technology and citizen–centric services to transform access to justice. especially women and people from marginalised groups who do not have access to the same networks of privilege (Indian Express 2014). and subject its conduct and capability to regular checks as well. in clear violation of merit-based appointment principles. Scheduled Tribes (STs).internationally. But the exclusion of civil society from appointments increases the judiciary’s burden to be accountable to it. judicial dynasties and structures that enable them must be disabled. Against this backdrop. unfortunately. In the last six years. in 2011. meritorious judges will be elevated to higher judiciary posts. which compromise the neutrality and independence that the judiciary prides itself on. it is hardly surprising that only six women judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court in the past 66 years. has made “climbing the ladder” practically impossible for others. This is particularly important for Supreme Court and high court judges. in focusing its energies on securing a veto in judges’ appointments. since these appointments are governed by an informal and self-evolved 60:40 split between members of the bar and district judiciary (Kuldip Singh v Union of India. since they determine questions of constitutional importance and since a significant number of them are direct appointees from the bar. Even if courts deem that these evaluations are too sensitive to be disclosed in full. presents a similar picture. no SC judge has been elevated to the Supreme Court. The judiciary has often taken on significant social justice causes. from November 2015. the Chhattisgarh High Court ordered the compulsory retirement of 17 SC and ST judges for poor performance. . The creation of insulated judicial dynasties. Subordinate judges are subject to periodic checks through annual confidential reports (ACRs). A genuine commitment to people-centric reform would also involve addressing the overrepresentation of privileged elites and dominant caste groups. with merely 62 female judges compared to 611 male judges (Nair 2015). but this seems to have had little effect on their inclusion (Chawla 1999). 2002). Combined with the self-appointing system. and such accountability would be meaningless if it were granted only at the stage of appointments and the system made completely opaque afterwards. a disproportionate number of higher court judges are appointed directly from the bar. neither branch of the government has brought up this issue in any depth. this has also resulted in several instances of sitting judges appointing close relatives. But there have been several allegations of caste-based discrimination against high court judges who evaluate and determine the career progression of subordinate judges. they can still hold the judiciary accountable to the people in other ways. eProsecution. career progression and socialisation that reinforce dominant attitudes. Scheduled Castes (SCs). Continuing structures of hereditary privilege. The higher judiciary must prioritise evolving such holistic metrics. but there are still a number of initiatives within its powers that it can expedite. But our higher judiciary has studiously failed to evolve internal mechanisms to appraise Supreme Court and high court judges. Reservations do exist for certain groups in the subordinate judiciary. and improve accountability and transparency for litigants. ePolice.

2015).. Self financing . the centre recently went as far as to cite how since 1990... The failure to imagine an expanded role for civil society is profoundly unjust towards the people these institutions are meant to serve. The executive’s failure to establish links and interoperability between the police. and courtroom services means that digitisation and integration of India’s justice system remains a distant dream.. which is reportedly almost half of all litigation in courts. to be in a position to act as a directional deterrent... while itself burdening the courts with excessive government litigation! The executive had previously acknowledged the mechanical and inefficient manner in which government litigation is often pursued. when the centre holds the judiciary to task for burgeoning backlogs.. The current struggle between the judiciary and executive is in some ways limited by its own history. for the political-executive establishment” (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association & Ors v Union of India. OPP WATER WORKS OFFICE . and often based on downright disdain. But ambiguous language and unmeasurable outcomes rendered the policy a mere piece of paper.. Even this project has been characterised by flawed resource allocation...R....NAGARAJA......... nor adequately determined. In the NJAC judgment. It is in departing from this binary. In recent spats with the judiciary. Monetary Gains : nil .. and centring the conversation on the public.. . Justice Khehar wrote that civil society “is not yet sufficiently motivated. But this statistic merits a closer look.S . and a lack of institutional coordination.. Both are ostensibly defending two different interpretations of a constitutional provision. and even formulated a National Litigation Policy in 2010.. subscriptions either for ourselves or on behalf of other organizations / individuals .. HUDCO FIRST STAGE ... between either executive or judicial dominance.and ePrisons—only eCourts seems to have taken off meaningfully. For instance.O.. it has made the second-highest number of appointments this year... by shortening vacations..M. HEBBAL ... imprecise budgeting.R.. Ordinary citizens have been given only a dichotomy. Now.... Absolving itself of blame.LIG-2 / 761 . it develops selective amnesia about how government litigation. a rehash of the same fights for control present since the early years of the republic. But the debate is so entirely subsumed under a concern for primacy that it no longer seems to really hinge on the constitutional text. far above the average (DNA 2016). since the increase in high court appointments this year is neither proportional to the increase in sanctioned judge strength nor litigating population. Never accepted any donations . prison. Address : . and it certainly does not centre on the people that the Constitution is about. the centre has been quick to pass back any blame for delaying appointments and worsening court backlogs. MYSORE . LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR .570017 INDIA Professional / Trade Title : S.. never made any monetary gain by way of advertisements on my websites or web news paper or otherwise. the centre continues to advise the judiciary on how to reduce backlog. leading to multiple delays in its completion.e – Clarion Of Dalit Periodicity : WEEKLY Circulation : FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION ON WEB Donations : NOT ACCEPTED.. Owner/Editor/Printer/Publisher : NAGARAJA..M. etc... clogs up sparse judicial time and disadvantages other litigants. that any meaningful solutions to this tussle will lie DECLARATION Name : ..

If i am repeatedly called to police station or else where for the sake of investigations . http://in.S. UID Aadhaar No : 5703 5339 3479 Cell : 91 8970318202 Public Interest Litigation is an appeal for justice to the courts . Where is the wisdom of Judges ? I . etc must be borne by the government. as the culprits are high & mighty .Nationality : INDIAN Body Donation : Physical Body of Nagaraja M R . Police show full bravery . Mysore ( Donation No. if anything untoward happens to me or to .com/document/334590032/Crimes-by-Khaki . no 3 rd degree torture on him .in/group/e-clarion-of-dalit .com/group/e-clarionofdalit/ . job . http://e-clarionofdalit. transportation . but never called the guilty culprits .O. my eyes must be handed over to Mysore Eye Bank . apply rigid law book while judging cases of commoners .S-e-Voice for Justice is donated to JSS Medical College . http://paper. courage of police ? Judges show their full wisdom . http://sites. courage .M. seizure without warrant .com/site/eclarionofdalit/Home . end result is present day india. criminals even once to police station for questioning .scribd. In case of either Unnatural death or Natural Death at the hands of criminal nexus . the losses i do incurr as a result like loss of wages . take suo motto action where as cases involving rich crooks comes before them inspite of repeated PILs they don’t consider it . search Crimes by Khaki https://www. While they are supposed to take action against rich crooks . etc . Individual cases of injustices pertaining to an individual are not covered under PIL. arrest in mid night .scribd. Traitors in Indian Judiciary & Police . this type of one sided questioning must not be done by police or investigating agencies .O. Nowadays people of questionable character .google. prevoiusly the police / IB personnel repeatedly called me the complainant (sufferer of injustices) to police station for questioning . In case of either Unnatural death or Natural Death at the hands of criminal nexus . S.e – clarion of Dalit & S. hereby do declare that information given above are true to the best of my knowledge & belief. my body must be handed over to JSS Medical College . just imagine what type of justice common man gets. use full might of law while acting against innocents . In the following web sites I have shown few actual cases of crimes by judges & police .S-e-Voice for Justice are donated to Mysore Eye Bank . however an individual an activist who is fighting for public causes suffering injustices as a result of his struggle . S. rich crooks .NAGARAJA. 167 dated 22 / 10 / 2003 ) . nagarajhrw@hotmail. Mysore for the study purposes of medical students.caused by powers that be to silence him can club his individual case under the public causes (PIL ) he is . commoners.O. their own corrupt colleagues no suo motto action . Judges make far fetched interpretations of law . Editor . Frequently crosses legal limits while acting against commoners like 3rd degree torture . Even takes suo motto action. Mysore WITHIN 6 Hours for immediate eye transplantation to the needy. seizure without warrant. Mysore . Editor .com .dalitonline. no arrest . Home page : http://eclarionofdalit. arrest / search .e – clarion of Dalit & S. to redress the injustices meted out to the public. Where is the bravery . Eye Donation : Both EYES of Nagaraja M R . let alone take suo motto action. Contact : naghrw@yahoo. http://groups. ultimately benefitting the rich delayed action inspite of complaint allowing time for rich crook to get anticipatory bail .blogspot.groups. integrity are being selected to public posts .

http://sites. As a end result . http://in. PILs .Your's sincerely. TWO crore as compensation to survivors of my family. http://twitter. .. this complaint is & will be effective. place : India…………………………………. etc while I was in a free & fair atmosphere are TRUE . HUDCO FIRST STAGE . news papers . date : 26. In the remaining cases which are under their jurisdiction police don’t act against higher ups . OPP WATER WORKS OFFICE . in such case the government of india is liable to pay Rs. edited . Powers that be . meeting with hit & run accidents . @ : LIG-2 / 761 .then that compensation money must be donated to Indian Army Welfare Fund. prevails over all the statements made by me before police earlier and which will be made by me in future before It sends a subtle message by police force to the complainant to keep silent .in/group/e-clarion-of-dalit . police have repeatedly called me to police station number of times ( have never called guilty influential persons even once) took statement from me and closed the files. etc of guilty police officials . Afterwards . http://www. If anything untoward happens to me or to my dependents or to my family members . Contact : naghrw@yahoo..R. denied proper medical care for ourselves . .R. their hands are tied although they are honest. public servants & Constitutional functionaries. I do make it clear the statements made by me in my original petitions .dalitonline.M. police file fake cases against me or my dependents to silence me .google.HEBBAL . pension . property . death due to improper medical care . the jurisdictional police together with above mentioned accussed public servants will be responsible for . if my whole family is eliminated by the criminal nexus . .blogspot. http://paper. LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR . over rides .org/en/user/naghrw A Member of Amnesty International . Hereby .com/group/e-clarionofdalit/ .amnesty.groups. high & mighty. Follow me at http://www. published & owned by NAGARAJA.M. etc .my family members like loss of job . printed . http://e-clarionofdalit. the money must be recovered by GOI as land arrears from the salary . Judges . If I or my family members or my dependents are denied our fundamental rights . human rights .MYSORE -570017 INDIA cell : 91 8970318202 home page: http://eclarionofdalit.In such case Chief Justice of India together with the jurisdictional revenue & police officials will be responsible for it .com . loss of lives . Even if criminal nexus levels fake charges .12.facebook.2016………………………….org/en/user/naghrw .. higher ups have referred all my previous cases to police although in most of the cases police don’t have jurisdiction over it. In such cases police lack practical powers .li/f-1367938674 .