BJP Government at centre must regard the justified recommendation of apex court collegium.

Why Narendra Modi headed central Government seeking CBI input in regard to appointment of former solicitor General Gopal Subrahmanyam as judge apex court while collegium of apex court recommended?
According to procedure, such inputs are sought from intelligence Department instead of CBI. Most surprising is that intelligence department didn’t trace any spot on the career record Gopal Subrahmanyam. IB had given clean chit to Gopal Subrahmanyam which justifies the recommendation of Supremecourt collegium. The credibility of apex investigating agency always remained under cloud as it has been addressed as caged pigeon by apex court of India and its role was criticised on number of occasions by media and leading individuals. Most important thing is that no public is aggrieved with this recommendation of collegium of supremecourt but an outfit is aggrieved with it because-
Hon’ble apex court had appointed Gopal Subrahmanyam as amicus curiae in the fake encounter case in which Gujarat police facing allegation to murder Soharabuddin and his wife. It is alleged that when the couples were travelling from Hadrabad to Ahamdabad by bus were shot dead by Gujarat police in fake encounter and it was also alleged that wife was physically tortured before being shot dead. Gopal Subrahmanyam as amicus curiae supported the stand of CBI enquiry as credibility of Gujarat police was under suspension and allegation was also against Gujarat police so how a guilty can enquire allegation made against him. Ipsofacto from the enquiry it was obvious that Gujarat police only covered the matter with the blaket. Concerned were Influential and now more Influential so wreaking vengeance with the former solicitor General and creating hurdle in his path to be Judge of apex court. This is political interference in the Judiciary which must be stopped as its consequence will be terrific. Ministry of law and justice which overlook genuine grievances of common citizens in the name of independence of judiciary why so serious on the justified stand of collegium of apex court. 

4 comments on BJP Government at centre must regard the justified recommendation of apex court collegium.

  1. Click here to download the free TOI Android App!X

    President clears Rohinton Nariman, Adarsh Kumar Goel and Arun Misra for SC
    Mohua Chatterjee & Dhananjay Mahapatra,TNN | Jun 21, 2014, 06.45AM IST
    FacebookTwitterGoogle PlusLinkedinEmail

    The warrants of appointment for Nariman, and Justices Goel and Misra would be issued soon, official sources said.
    Text resize:AAA
    NEW DELHI: President Pranab Mukherjee on Friday approved the Centre's decision to return to the Chief Justice of India-headed collegium for reconsideration the proposal to appoint former solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam as a judge of the Supreme Court.

    The SC will soon get three new judges in former solicitor general Rohinton F Nariman and chief justices of Orissa and Calcutta High Courts – Adarsh Kumar Goel and Arun Misra – as the President gave assent to the collegium's proposal to appoint them as judges of the apex court.

    The warrants of appointment for Nariman, and Justices Goel and Misra would be issued soon, official sources said. Once the warrants of appointment are conveyed to Chief Justice of India R M Lodha, he will fix a date for administering oath of office to them.

    Subramaniam's name was sent along with the three by the collegium to the government for appointment as judges of the Supreme Court. The Centre concurred with the collegium's proposal for appointing Nariman and the chief justices of the two HCs.

    However, adverse reports from Central Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence Bureau and his name figuring in intercepted conversations of former corporate lobbyist Niira Radia forced the hand of the Narendra Modi government which did not want to take a risk given the trust and faith the highest court enjoys in public eye.

    Nariman, who was named by the TOI in 2010 among the top ten advocates in Supreme Court, had said the turning point in his career was doing masters in law from Harvard.

    He had said one of the rewarding moments in his career came when a full court meeting of the SC on its own designated him a senior advocate when he was just 36 years old. He had not even applied for it. At that point of time, 'senior advocate' designation was conferred only on those above 45 years of age with more than 20 years of practice.

    Nariman, 58, indulges in charity and was instrumental in setting up Supreme Court Lawyers Welfare Trust. But he had a strange confession to make when asked what made him sad – "Winning poor cases which one should lose". He enjoys western classical music and terms books as his "life and blood".

    Justice Goel, 61, was designated senior advocate by the SC in 1999 and two years later was appointed as a judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court. He was appointed chief justice of Gauhati High Court on December 20, 2011 and was transferred to Orissa High Court as CJ on October 12 last year.

    Justice Misra, 59, was part of law faculty in Jiwaji University, Gwalior from 1986 to 1996. He was appointed as additional judge in Madhya Pradesh High Court on October 25, 1999 and was made a permanent judge on October 24, 2001.

    He was appointed chief justice of Rajasthan High Court on November 26, 2010 and was transferred to the Calc

  2. By Rajeev Dhavan 21:39 29 Jun 2014, updated 21:39 29 Jun 2014
    Gopal Subramanium has
    Once the Supreme Court has nominated a person to be a judge of the Court, it is the constitutional duty of the Court to protect and defend the nomination.

    As soon as the Supreme Court read rumours that the government was going to veto Gopal Subramanium's name, it could have scorched the rumours by publicly stating: "No such file has been received by the Supreme Court."

    It was the Prime Minister's duty, and Arun Jaitley or Ravi Shankar Prasad's duty – whatever their portfolios – to clarify that the government has sent no such veto.
    Gopal Subramanium has been shabbily treated by India's highest court, as well as its political leaders
    Gopal Subramanium has been shabbily treated by India's highest court, as well as its political leaders


    Clearly, higher-ups in the government had inspired these leaks and simply sat back to watch the character assassination of a future judge.

    Finally, it was the President's responsibility under Article 78 to ask why three names out of the four were being sent to him for a warrant of appointment.

    Article 78 empowers the President to send back a file for reconsideration. Therefore the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister and the President have failed in their requisite duties to allow a situation to be perpetuated, whereby Gopal's trust deficit was being mauled.

    If future appointments are going to be made in this manner, the entire process will be vitiated.

    In this case, the rumours about Gopal were totally unfounded. It is as if Modi's hounds made malicious leaks to the media and everyone just sat back and watched the show. Ringside seats were given to the PM, the Law Minister and, alas, Chief Justice R.M. Lodha.

    A judge proposed for the highest judicial appointment in the Supreme Court cannot be forced to play hide-and-seek with the media.

    Gopal did not ask for this appointment, the Supreme Court invited him to consent to one.

    Hereafter judges will be appointed subject to Modi's pleasure.
    The Supreme Court was under a constitutional duty to protect the reputation of its nominee
    The Supreme Court was under a constitutional duty to protect the reputation of its nominee

    The Constitutional provisions for judicial appointments in Article 124 are: "Each judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President…after consultation with such of the judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Court in the states as the President may deem necessary…provided that in the case of the appointment of a judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of India shall always be consulted."

    In three decisions of the Supreme Court, namely S.P. Gupta (1982), the Supreme Courts Association (1993) and the Presidential Reference (1998) cases, the Supreme Court interpreted the term "consultation" with the judiciary as follows: (i)This was a constitutional consultation which stood on a unique pedestal over any other kind of consultation;

    (ii) the Chief Justice's role was primary and not that of the executive;

    (iii); the Chief Justice in consultation with a collegium acted as the custodian of these appointments to the Court;

    (iv) the recommendation of the Chief Justice (with his collegium) was final; (v) withdrawal of a nomination to judgeship can only be made if the Chief Justice (and his collegium) felt good and cogent reasons exist, requiring proof of the highest order;

    (vi) the government has no role to play except to present cogent reasons to the Chief Justice whose decision would be final.

    In Gopal's case, the government played a dirty game of trial by rumour whilst he watched with no one to defend him. The allegations against him were planted. It is said the political authorities asked the CBI and IB to dig out dirt on Gop

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: