CJI Dipak Misra will Probably Be remembered for chronicle of controversies, Instead of major Conclusions
On 3 October, the 46th Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice Ranjan Gogoi will commence his reign that will last for over a year. It is not him making headlines at the legal fraternity, but also the outgoing CJI Justice Dipak Misra.
This is because his tenure the dynamics have stood the test of the principle of law and of the Supreme Court have now been attempted. But over the landmark decisions made by the Supreme Court, it's the controversies which have drawn the nation's attention.
Ever wondered why does the National Anthem play every screening of a film in the theatres and why you are expected to stand up to exactly the very same as a mark of your admiration for the nation? Well, we've got the Supreme Court, and notably Justice Misra to thank for that as it had been he who had arranged it at the matter of Shyam Narayan Chowsky vs Union of India.
Logically and lawfully, this order did not hold water. A person's logic could lead him to question the fact as to whether standing up for the National Anthem is the only way in which one can respect one's own country.
Isn't the act of keeping our streets clean or observing the traffic rules in itself a bigger form of the nation of one? Legally, Article 51A of the Indian Constitution casts a duty upon each individual.
However, many critics have dismissed this provision being employed to rank up in theatre halls to the National Anthem as they assert that this forms a part of 'judicial censorship' as it takes away our freedom to speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) which only stands qualified by the restrictions of any legislation made under Article 19(2) and not from the court of law.
There was A massive controversy sparked when he announced himself to be the 'grasp of this roster'. This meant he had been the deciding authority in regards to what matters were assigned to which nobody and judge would question his authority with this.
It's, in reality, although there is not any written law making the chief justice this roster's master. However, the problem in his case was his interest in the subject being adjudicated.
When the CBI had arrested the retired judge of the Orissa High Court, Justice IM Quddusi about a medical college bribery scam it had all began. This scam also featured the name of Justice Misra.
When a petition on it was filed, a branch chair (2-judge bench) headed by Justice Jasti Chelameswar termed the allegations"grave and severe" and called the issue to be determined by a seat constituted by five senior-most judges, excluding the then CJI, Justice Misra.
But, the next day, the then CJI shaped a Constitutional Bench (5-judge bench) and annulled the order of Justice Chelameswar on the ground that the CJI is the master of this roster, along with the 2nd senior judge (Justice Chelameswar) could not have constituted a seat to hear the matter.
Although, this choice is regarded as good law, due to the participation of Justice Misra in determining his power it goes against the Latin maxim - nemo judex in sua causa which translates into'no one could be a judge in his own case'.
The correct and proper way to determine this could have been if Justice Misra could have allowed a Constitutional Bench, excluding the two judges of the Supreme Court, to adjudicate as to whether the chief justice is that the master of the roster or not.
Justice Misra also faced an impeachment motion against him but the Rajya Sabha chairman rejected it.
From the meeting, Justice Chelameswar was noted stating that " the government of the Supreme Court isn't in order and several things that are less than desired have occurred in the past couple of months. We owe a responsibility to the institution and the country.
Our attempts have failed in convincing CJI to take steps to protect the institution" Because there wasn't any follow up with this 17, But this inner conflict was placated.
Despite, these spots that are rough, we shouldn't remove Justice Misra's contribution to the legal fraternity as well to the country. The final week of his tenure was likely the best week the legal community has observed in terms.
Some of them have changed the landscape of jurisprudence of India for its great. However, it won't be amiss to state his name will be remembered in posterity less for these landmark, and more for the controversies judgments.
This is because his tenure the dynamics have stood the test of the principle of law and of the Supreme Court have now been attempted. But over the landmark decisions made by the Supreme Court, it's the controversies which have drawn the nation's attention.
Ever wondered why does the National Anthem play every screening of a film in the theatres and why you are expected to stand up to exactly the very same as a mark of your admiration for the nation? Well, we've got the Supreme Court, and notably Justice Misra to thank for that as it had been he who had arranged it at the matter of Shyam Narayan Chowsky vs Union of India.
Logically and lawfully, this order did not hold water. A person's logic could lead him to question the fact as to whether standing up for the National Anthem is the only way in which one can respect one's own country.
Isn't the act of keeping our streets clean or observing the traffic rules in itself a bigger form of the nation of one? Legally, Article 51A of the Indian Constitution casts a duty upon each individual.
However, many critics have dismissed this provision being employed to rank up in theatre halls to the National Anthem as they assert that this forms a part of 'judicial censorship' as it takes away our freedom to speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) which only stands qualified by the restrictions of any legislation made under Article 19(2) and not from the court of law.
There was A massive controversy sparked when he announced himself to be the 'grasp of this roster'. This meant he had been the deciding authority in regards to what matters were assigned to which nobody and judge would question his authority with this.
It's, in reality, although there is not any written law making the chief justice this roster's master. However, the problem in his case was his interest in the subject being adjudicated.
When the CBI had arrested the retired judge of the Orissa High Court, Justice IM Quddusi about a medical college bribery scam it had all began. This scam also featured the name of Justice Misra.
When a petition on it was filed, a branch chair (2-judge bench) headed by Justice Jasti Chelameswar termed the allegations"grave and severe" and called the issue to be determined by a seat constituted by five senior-most judges, excluding the then CJI, Justice Misra.
But, the next day, the then CJI shaped a Constitutional Bench (5-judge bench) and annulled the order of Justice Chelameswar on the ground that the CJI is the master of this roster, along with the 2nd senior judge (Justice Chelameswar) could not have constituted a seat to hear the matter.
Although, this choice is regarded as good law, due to the participation of Justice Misra in determining his power it goes against the Latin maxim - nemo judex in sua causa which translates into'no one could be a judge in his own case'.
The correct and proper way to determine this could have been if Justice Misra could have allowed a Constitutional Bench, excluding the two judges of the Supreme Court, to adjudicate as to whether the chief justice is that the master of the roster or not.
Justice Misra also faced an impeachment motion against him but the Rajya Sabha chairman rejected it.
From the meeting, Justice Chelameswar was noted stating that " the government of the Supreme Court isn't in order and several things that are less than desired have occurred in the past couple of months. We owe a responsibility to the institution and the country.
Our attempts have failed in convincing CJI to take steps to protect the institution" Because there wasn't any follow up with this 17, But this inner conflict was placated.
Despite, these spots that are rough, we shouldn't remove Justice Misra's contribution to the legal fraternity as well to the country. The final week of his tenure was likely the best week the legal community has observed in terms.
Some of them have changed the landscape of jurisprudence of India for its great. However, it won't be amiss to state his name will be remembered in posterity less for these landmark, and more for the controversies judgments.
Post a Comment