Medical Council of India bribery scam: Prashant Bhushan sends transcripts - says probe CJI // H. S. Giani: Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion // Death of Judge Loya: Uncle Shrinivas wants a probe

NB: An RSS functionary has denounced the public protest of the four SC judges as a 'political conspiracy', and for 'poisoning the waters' by undermining the Indian peoples faith in the judiciary. This is a richly ironical statement for an organisation whose core beliefs require the promotion of hatred and enmity towards selected sections of the Indian public. Their accusations of 'love jihad', 'beef-eating', 'anti-nationalists' etc., have polluted India's polity and caused numerous deaths over the past three years since their man assumed supreme executive power in Government. Some material may be read hereAnd as January 30, 2018, will mark seventy years of Mahatma Gandhi's murder, we can refresh our memories regarding the communal hatred behind that crime. (Incidentally, there is a libel case pending in the SC regarding accusations of their involvement). 

But let us leave their history aside. Since they claim to be opponents of corruption, why has their government not undertaken an inquiry into the suicide note of ex CM of Arunachal in 2016? 

The note contains numerous instances of judicial corruption, and accuses personages from both the Congress and the BJP of perverting the course of justice. Why the thundering silence from the RSS/BJP on this burning evidence? Why has there been no inquiry? Why are the op-ed writers keeping silent? I find it dismaying that a learned commentator who wants us to 'carefully parse out the issues' has chosen to bring up the lack of 'justiciable evidence' of the CJI's wrong doing, while at the same time completely passing over the implications of Kalikho Pul's suicide note. Not to mention the MCI bribery scam. If high judicial officials are to adjudicate allegations concerning themselves, of course there will be no justiciable evidence, because they will not allow it to see the light of day! 

Here's a quote from HS Giani's article below: "The Chief Justice of India ordered the next senior-most judge of the Supreme Court of India, not to list the case which touched on allegations of impropriety against himself, before the top five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court of India. And for this purpose, the Chief Justice broke up the Constitution Bench that afternoon..."

Where are all our conscience keepers hiding? Why are their 'eyes wide shut'? Is all this an example of 'faith in the judiciary', or of a cynical cover-up of criminal actions? DS
(NB: The above story was in a prominent place in the IE portal, and has disappeared from view in the past 40 minutes. It's still on the portal, but you can't see it, you have to look for it. DS)
Just over two months ago, senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan and Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra locked horns in the Supreme Court after Bhushan demanded that the CJI recuse himself from the Lucknow medical college graft case. The CJI refused to do so and Bhushan stormed out of the court.
Now he is back with a new complaint against the CJI in the same case and has sent copies of it to the four “rebel” judges, Justices J Chelameswar, R Gogoi, K Joseph and M B Lokur.

A copy of the complaint was also sent to Justice A K Sikri. Signed by Bhushan, as Convenor of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, the complaint calls for an inquiry against the Chief Justice by either three or five senior Supreme Court Judges for what are described as “various allegations of misconduct.”

The complaint alleges, “The CBI FIR makes allegations that the entire conspiracy and planning was to bribe and influence apex court judges who are dealing with the case of Prasad medical Trust. This Bench was clearly headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra. In these circumstances, he was an interested party and could not have dealt with this case either on the judicial side or the administrative side by way of assigning a particular Bench to hear this case…while at this stage there may not be conclusive evidence of Justice Dipak Misra’s involvement, the circumstances listed definitely warrant a thorough investigation…”.. read more:

Harpreet Singh Giani: Caesar’s wife, it was said, must be above suspicion
History tells us that after Publius Clodius Pulcher was prosecuted for gaining admittance to Pompeia’s house with the intention to seduce her, Caesar divorced Pompeia, saying that “my wife ought not even to be under suspicion”. Received wisdom tells us that Caesar found it irrelevant that Pulcher was acquitted of the charge. He believed that it was impermissible for Caesar to remain married to anyone remotely connected with a scandal.
Contemporary wisdom has taken the idiom and turned it on its head. Contemporary wisdom decrees that just because she is married to Caesar, his wife must be deemed to be beyond any suspicion. Her status as Caesar’s consort places her above and beyond suspicion. To suspect her, would be to suspect Caesar, unthinkable and blasphemous.

It used to be the integrity of the individuals that gave an institution its dignity and respect. If the leadership of an institution was trustworthy, the institution would be trusted. If the successors were unfit, the institution was distrusted. The reputation of the institution was rightly transient, being as good or as bad as the persons who controlled it. Today, we are told that securing a place in a historically-venerated institution entitles a person to be absolved of all his sins, he or she must be elevated to Godhead and regardless of his personal qualities or fallibilities, he must be deemed to be beyond doubt and unamenable to scrutiny. The institution is now the protector of the virtue of the man, rather than the other way around.

The Supreme Court of India is just one of the institutions making up the Indian constitutional system. In conjunction with the legislature and the executive, the judiciary is equally responsible for preserving and perpetuating the rule of law within the country. Despite their enthusiasm and unbridled optimism, the Constituent Assembly that gave us the voluminous 1950 Indian Constituent could neither predict, nor provide for every eventuality or challenge that an inchoate and unfolding future held. Yet the document they produced was crystal clear in the division of powers – the legislature was to make the law, the executive to enforce it and the judiciary to adjudicate any disputes. India never understood the boundary that separates the executive from the polity, or the legislature. But that is a lament for another day.

Successive generations of ignoble legislators had conspicuously failed to address the emerging gaps in legislation and this resulted in gaping voids in our legislative schema. While the Constituent Assembly had men and women from the learned professions who understood the nuances of juridical and legal drafting, lamentably today the Parliament and legislatures provide retirement sinecures for actors, sportsmen and others, who possibly could not be expected to legislate for the nation.

Conveniently, though inappropriately, the judiciary has repeatedly stepped in and backfilled the legislative voids. These unwarranted and unwholesome forays by the judiciary into the domain of the legislature were tolerated and even welcomed, from the great reliance the nation placed on the integrity and scruples of those who sat on the Supreme Court bench in the early day. The initial transgressions were properly out of dire necessity and expressed by those judges as temporary measures, in anticipation of responsive legislative action.

This has degenerated now into a system where using the optimistically-sounding phrase “Judicial Activism”, the Supreme Court has trampled recklessly even in those areas which are taboo even for the Parliament… read more

Popular posts from this blog

The Almond Trees by Albert Camus (1940)

Kevin McDonald - ISIS isn’t Medieval: Revolution, Terror and Statemaking are Modern

Haruki Murakami: On seeing the 100% perfect girl one beautiful April morning

After the Truth Shower

A Message to the 21st Century by Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997)

Rudyard Kipling: critical essay by George Orwell (1942)

Satyagraha - An answer to modern nihilism