Justice Chandrachud took the oath at a ceremony held at the Rashtrapati Bhavan, which was attended by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Law Minister Kiren Rijiju, former Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit, Supreme Court judges' and other dignitaries.
On October 11, former Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit named Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, the senior most judge in the Supreme Court, as his successor. Justice Lalit retired on November 8.
Justice Chandrachud is the son of former Supreme Court judge Y.V. Chandrachud, who was the longest serving CJI for being in office for about seven years and four months between 1978 to 1985. During his tenure, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud overturned two judgments of his father -- which were related to adultery and the right to privacy.
Justice Chandrachud obtained a PhD from Harvard Law School and is known as a non-conformist judge. He has played a key role in introducing virtual hearings during the Covid time, which has now become a permanent feature. He has been part of the landmark judgments on Ayodhya title dispute, decriminalisation of homosexuality, adultery, privacy, entry of women into Sabarimala, etc.
Justice Chandrachud practised in the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court. He passed BA with honours in economics from St Stephen's College, New Delhi and completed LLB from Campus Law Centre, Delhi University. He also served as the Additional Solicitor General of India from 1998 till 2000. He was first appointed as a judge of the Bombay High Court on March 29, 2000. On May 13, 2016, he was appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court.
Justice Chandrachud has also served as the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court since October 31, 2013 until his elevation as an apex court judge.
Justice Chandrachud has been a visiting Professor of Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Mumbai and at Oklahoma University School of Law, US. In June, 1998, he was designated as the senior advocate by the Bombay High Court.
Law Minister Kiren Rijiju, in a tweet, said: "In exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution of India, President appoints Dr. Justice DY Chandrachud, Judge, Supreme Court as the Chief Justice of India with effect from 9th November, 22".
On October 11, Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit named Justice Chandrachud, the seniormost judge in the Supreme Court, as his successor.
CJI Lalit, who will retire on November 8, had, in presence of all Supreme Court judges, handed over the letter of recommendation to Justice Chandrachud.A
Justice Chandrachud, who will hold office till November 10, 2024, is the son of former Supreme Court judge Y.V. Chandrachud, who was the longest-serving CJI, being in office for about seven years and four months between 1978 to 1985. During his tenure, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud overturned two judgments of his father - which were related to adultery and the right to privacy.
Justice Chandrachud, who is a PhD from Harvard Law School, is known as a non-conformist judge. He has played a key role in introducing virtual hearings during the Covid time, which has now become a permanent feature. He has been part of the landmark judgments on Ayodhya title dispute, decriminalisation of homosexuality, adultery, privacy, entry of women into Sabarimala etc.,
Justice Chandrachud practised in Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court. He passed BA with honours in economics from St Stephen's College, New Delhi and completed LLB from Campus Law Centre, Delhi University. He also served as Additional Solicitor General of India from 1998 till 2000. He was first appointed as judge of the Bombay High Court on March 29, 2000.
Justice Chandrachud has also served as Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court since October 31, 2013 until his elevation as an apex court judge on May 13, 2016
Justice ChandrachudAhas been a visiting Professor of Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Mumbai and at Oklahoma University School of Law, USA. In June, 1998, he was designated as senior advocate by the Bombay High Court.
The Centre, as per Memorandum of Procedure, asks the outgoing CJI to name the successor, just before a month of retirement. Law Minister Rijiju, on October 7, sent a letter to Chief Justice Lalit to make recommendation for appointment of his successor.
The CJI handed over the copy of his letter of recommendation to Justice Chandrachud.
On October 7, the government had sent a letter to CJI Lalit to recommend his successor.
Justice Chandrachud would become the 50th CJI on November 9, a day after the incumbent CJI would demit office.
He would have a tenure of two years and is due to retire on November 10, 2024.
He will assume charge on August 27 after incumbent N V Ramana demits office the day before.
"In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (2) of Article 124 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, judge of the Supreme Court, to be the Chief Justice of India with effect from 27 August, 2022," a law ministry notification said.
Justice Lalit was appointed as judge of the Supreme Court in August 2014 from the Bar. He will become the second Chief Justice of India to be directly elevated to the Supreme Court from the Bar, after Justice S.M. Sikri, who served as the 13th CJI in 1971. Justice Lalit has served as a Member of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee for two terms.
Justice Lalit was born on November 9, 1957 at Solapur, Maharashtra. He enrolled as an advocate by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa in June 1983. He practised in the High Court of Bombay till December 1985 before shifting his practice to Delhi in January 1986.
Justice Lalit worked in the chambers of Soli J. Sorabjee from October 1986 till 1992 and was on the panel of lawyers for the Union of India during the period Sorabjee was Attorney General for India. From 1992 till 2002, he practised as advocate-on-record and was designated as senior advocate by the Supreme Court in April 2004. He was also appointed amicus curiae in many important issues, including forest matters, vehicular pollution, pollution of Yamuna etc. He was appointed as special public prosecutor for CBI under the orders of the Supreme Court to conduct trial in all 2G matters.
According to a communication from the top court, "Chief Justice of India Justice N.V. Ramana today recommended the name of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit as his successor to the Minister for Law and Justice. Justice Ramana personally handed over a copy of his letter of recommendation dated 03.08.2022 to Justice Lalit today (04.08.2022) in the morning."
Justice Ramana, who is set to demit office on August 26 on superannuation, on Wednesday received a communication from the Minister of Law and Justice to nominate his successor.
On Wednesday, a communication from the apex court said: "Today (03.08.2022) at 2130 hrs, the Secretariat of the Chief Justice of India has received a communication dated 03.08.2022 from the Minister of Law and Justice requesting the CJI to recommend the name of his successor."
Justice U.U. Lalit, who is the senior most judge in the Supreme Court, is in line to become the next Chief Justice of India. Justice Lalit, was appointed to the apex top court directly from the Bar. He would be having a short tenure of less than three months as the Chief Justice of India. Justice Lalit would retire on November 8.
According to the Memorandum of Procedure, the Law Minister seeks recommendation from the outgoing CJI to nominate his successor. Usually, the recommendation is sought within a month of the retirement of incumbent Chief Justice of India.
The CJI is scheduled to demit office on August 26.
According to the convention, the CJI recommends the name of the senior-most judge as the successor. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit is next in seniority to Ramana.
As per the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which governs the process of appointment of judges in higher judiciary, the outgoing CJI initiates the process of naming the successor after getting a communication from the Law ministry.
Justice Lalit, if appointed, will have a tenure of less than three months and retire on November 8.
While speaking at the State-level conference on Juvenile Justice: Issues and Challenges in Cuttack, Misra said State government as well as corporate houses will have major role to play in this regard.
"It is only through proper employment, juveniles with conflict with law and be made to return to main stream,"said Misra.
Referring to a study, Misra said that many juvenile offenders have confessed to have committed crimes under the influence of drugs.
"Many times the juveniles feel that they are not properly looked after emotionally either by family members, teachers and society. Some source of employment is to be provide to them so that there can be a feedback system to see they do not return to crime,"Misra added.
Magistrates of Juvenile Boards, police and other officers should not get carried away by their own individual emotions rather they needs to have a rational approach and be guided by parameters, rules and guidelines of the Juvenile Justice Act
Built in 1904, the heritage structure in the Barabati Killa which was earlier used as the residence of Orissa High Court Chief Justice, has now been converted into a museum.
Showcasing the glorious history of Orissa High Court and other district courts, the museum has some precious artefacts displayed inside including the landmark verdicts, important historical documents, keys used in the Court, type writer, HC Chief Justice's chair and many more antiques to attract public and tourists.
"Artefacts and precious items from Ganjam, Keonjhar, Koraput, Balasore and other districts have been preserved here. The museum has been set up not for today, but to preserve history of the High Court," said Misra after inaugurating the museum.
People should develop an interest to visit the museum as it will help in enhancing their knowledge, he added.
Other dignitaries who graced the occasion were HC Chief Justice Vineet Saran, High Court Judges, office-bearers and lawyers of the Bar Association.
This is Dipak Misra’s first visit to Odisha after being sworn in as the 45th CJI on August 28 earlier this year.
A division bench headed by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court JS Khehar ordered Om and Jain to deposit the amount within a month while saying that the petition was filed to grab public attention only.
Om and Jain had filed the PIL challenging the appointment of Justice Mishra as the next CJI. They had argued the present Chief Justice recommending the name of next CJI is unconstitutional and said only the President of India has the right to choose the next CJI.
The bench dismissed the PIL saying the same is ‘a publicity stunt’.
Also Read: Swami Om calls Salman Khan a traitor
Om is not new to controversy. He is infamous for his sexiest comments on reality show Big Boss. A Delhi court had also declared him a “proclaimed offender”.
Justice Mishra is the third Odia to be appointed to this prestigious position after Justice Ranganath Mishra and Justice Gopal Ballav Pattanaik.
Current incumbent Chief Justice J S Khehar, who is going to retire today, had recommended the name of Justice Mishra as his successor.
It may be mentioned that Justice Mishra, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court after Justice Khehar, is the nephew of former Chief Justice Ranganath Mishra.
His tenure will end on October 2, 2018.
“When it comes to judiciary, the confidence of the people has, over the years, multiplied, increased and strengthened. And that is what makes our challenge greater to live up to the confidence of the people by continued hard work and rectitude which is not an easy task,” he said while addressing the opening day of the centenary celebrations of the circuit court of Patna High Court for Odisha here.
Addressing lawyers and judges on the occasion, Justice Thakur said “You are permanently and almost every moment, inside the court and outside the court, working under public gaze. People assess you, judge you but you are not affected by their judgement. Some of them are pleasant, some are unpleasant. But the fact remains that the judiciary has maintained its credibility despite the fact that the challenges to credibility have kept multiplying”.
Referring to the vacancies of judges in various courts across the country, Justice Thakur said over three crore cases are pending in various courts across the country. “Measures are being initiated to fill up the vacant posts which will help in the speedy delivery of justice,” he pointed out.
In his address, chief minister Naveen Patnaik said history was made in May 1916 when the Circuit Court of Patna High Court for Odisha held its first sitting at Cuttack.
"Utkal Gourav Madhusudan Das was there to express hope that this would lead to the establishment of a separate High Court for Odisha one day. We all are happy that all his dreams were fulfilled as Odisha became a separate province twenty years later in 1936 and the permanent High Court for Odisha was established in 1948,” he added.
He further said the importance of the judiciary in a democratic society can hardly be exaggerated as it administers justice, protects the rights of the citizens and acts as an interpreter and the guardian of the Constitution.
“Upholding the rule of law and making every citizen equal before the law is one of the primary responsibilities of the judiciary. I believe that our courts have largely succeeded in fulfilling this responsibility,” the chief minister pointed out.
Referring to the achievement of the Orissa High Court, Patnaik said it has produced many outstanding Judges. Over the years, the judgments of this court have been widely acclaimed, he said.
“Besides, the cooperation between the bench and the bar, one of the key parameters for successful legal system delivery, has made it possible for the court to successfully deal with a large number of cases of a varied nature to render justice to the people,” he observed.
The chief minister also said the state government has taken up the issue of filling up of vacant judges positions in the Orissa High Court with the Centre for smooth functioning of the judicial system that delivers justice to all sections of society in the state.
Supreme Court Judge Justice Dipak Mishra, Chief Justice of Orissa High Court Vineet Saran and all former Chief Justices of the Orissa High Court were present at the inaugural celebration.
Besides, Chief Justices and Judges of other High Courts will also attend the centenary celebration which will continue till May 20.
Bijay Ragada, secretary of Orissa High Court Bar Association, informed that there will be a seminar and cultural programmes by the Bar Association, High Court staff, District Judge Court staff members and moharirs of advocates during the celebration.
Among others, Supreme Court judge Justice Dipak Mishra, Chief Justice of Orissa High Court Justice Vineet Saran, Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik and all the retired judges of Orissa High Court will attend the programme.
Besides, Chief Justices and Justices of various High Courts across the country will attend the 12-day long programme. The centenary celebration will culminate on May 20.
Cultural programmes will be organised in the evening during the centenary celebrations.
What was not said then was recently revealed by Justice Kurian Joseph -- one of the four "rebel judges" -- that they felt the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra was being "controlled from outside".
The press conference by the four judges, including Ranjan Gogoi, who was elevated to Chief Justice later in the year, created ripples in judicial and political circles which Justice Amitava Roy said left the top court with a "fractured face" and dented its credibility and the paramountcy of the judicial process.
Though the four judges addressing the media on the issues that were internal to the court did not find favour with the legal fraternity, including former judges, it did jolt the institution's majesty, image and credibility.
The memory of the "sensational press conference", senior counsel K.V. Vishwanathan said, has fortunately receded to the background because of the import of a series of judicial pronouncement through the year pushing to forefront the doctrine of "constitutional morality", "gender justice" and the limits of state intrusion in the private domain of citizens, to mention just a few issues.
However, activists lawyer Prashant Bhushan said that "nothing much has changed" except that the allocation of cases to different benches is better and things are "not as bad as in the past."
Buttressing the point, Bhushan said the Chief Justice continues to be the Master of Rolls and PILs are not being listed before the benches headed by five senior-most judges of the top court and were largely confined to the court of the Chief Justice.
The last assault, as it were, in this chain of events was the failed attempt by the Congress to initiate impeachment of the then Chief Justice Misra -- a move that had few takers in judicial circles as some former judges felt that there was no merit in the move.
However, senior advocate Kapil Sibal asserted that the grounds for the impeachment were "justified" and not "frivolous" as he sought to dispel the impression that he was the inspiration behind the move.
It was moved by the "Congress party and 50 MPs had signed it", Sibal maintained.
Assessing as "average" the top court's performance in 2018, senior counsel Dushyant Dave took a dim view of its failure to even order an enquiry into the sad demise of Judge B.H. Loya -- who was conducting the trial on the alleged staged shootout of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, killing of his wife Kausarbi and encounter of his associate Tulsiram Prajapati in 2002.
(All the 22 accused in the case were acquitted earlier this year. Amit Shah, then the Gujurat Home Minister and now the BJP President, was at one time named in the case but was later discharged.)
"The year 2018 has been one of the darkest chapters in the history of the Supreme Court. The abject failure of the Court in even ordering an enquiry into the sad demise of Judge Loya reflects the lack of independence on its part. The court missed a golden opportunity to send a powerful message to subordinate judiciary, the backbone of the administration of justice, that it stands by them, come what may," Dave told IANS.
Hailing the emergence of the "doctrine of constitutional morality and the triumph of gender justice", as its "crowning glory", Vishwanathan said the court has in "no uncertain terms asserted that there is no place in our country, for what I may say, the 'hecklers of morality'".
"Vested interests, under the guise of social morality" had been "attempting to undermine valuable constitutional rights of the individuals," Vishwanathan said, adding that women and the marginalised "will no longer be subjected to moral policing of the others' notions of morality".
"Victorian Morality was buried nine fathoms deep," he asserted.
Some recent appointments, transfers and elevations in higher judiciatry by the top court's collegium did raise eye-brows.
Its functioning was "far from satisfactory" and "hugely disappointing", Dave said.
Pointing to the flaws in the selection of judges for appointment to higher judiciary, Dave faulted the collegium's seniority-centric approach and not picking "the best from amongst those available" as mandated by the court's own judgements.
The year also saw court telling the government that Aadhaar was not panacea of all that ails governance and restricted it from demanding the Unique ID (UID) number for each and every scheme.
Another area of serious concern where top court left its indelible stamp was environment. It was unsparing in hauling the administration for not doing enough for curbing an alarmingly high level of air pollution and the handling of the piling mound of solid waste.
Describing the ban on the use of pet coke and furnace oil in the NCR as a "huge, huge step", Supreme Court lawyer and amicus curiae in environmental matters Aparajita Singh said the court's order had blocked American pet coke from reaching India's shores after China banned it.
Referring to the several order of the court relating to environment which were not being acted upon by the authorities on the ground level, Aparajita Singh said: "The consistent monitoring of the implementation of its orders infused fear amongst the authorities and they fell in line and started acting on them."
Other landmark judgements durinng the year were advancing the deadline for the introduction of BS VI fuel from 2024 to April 1, 2020 across the country, issuing long-awaited guidelines on witness protection, guarding the identity of the victim of sexual assault and rape including the rehabilitation of the victim and payment of compensation.
(By Pramod Kumar)
CJI Misra, who presided over benches that delivered a series of key verdicts like the one on Aadhaar and homosexuality during the last 10 days, appeared to be emotional during the brief court proceedings that lasted about 25 minutes.
The chief justice in his inimitable style stopped a lawyer who started singing at the fag end of the proceedings. “Tum jiyo hazaron saal…” the lawyer crooned, singing the opening lines of a Hindi film song from the late 1950s usually played on birthdays. CJI Misra immediately stopped him and said, “Presently I am responding from my heart. I will respond from my mind in the evening.”
Justice Gogoi, who will take over the baton from Justice Misra on October 3, and Justice A M Khanwilkar were sitting on the bench, which said it will hear no urgent mentioning of matters Monday and added that the matter could be heard later on October 3 by the bench headed by the next CJI.
In a strange turn of events, lawyer R P Luthra mentioned two alleged controversial tweets by senior lawyer Indira Jaising and advocate Prashant Bhushan against the outgoing CJI, criticising his recent judgements, including the verdict in the Koregaon-Bhima violence case. He urged the court to take cognisance of the alleged controversial tweets. But the bench didn’t respond after perusing the tweets.
CJI Misra has headed various benches of different combinations, and delivered several verdicts in the recent past. These include upholding the Centre’s flagship scheme Aadhaar with certain riders and decriminalising consensual gay sex and adultery. The verdicts also include judgements in the Koregaon-Bhima violence case and allowing all women entry into the Sabarimala temple.
Justice Misra was appointed additional judge of the Orissa High Court on January 17, 1996, before his transfer to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. He became a permanent judge on December 19, 1997. He assumed charge of the office of chief justice of Patna High Court on December 23, 2009 and became chief justice of the Delhi High Court on May 24, 2010. He was elevated as a judge of the apex court on October 10, 2011 and became the Chief Justice on August 28, 2017.
President Ram Nath Kovind designated Justice Gogoi as the next CJI to succeed Chief Justice Dipak Misra who will demit office on October 2.
Justice Gogoi will be sworn in by the President on October 3 and would preside over Court Number One, the Chief Justice's court.
Justice Gogoi, known for his no-nonsense approach, will be the 46th CJI and will have a term of 13 months 15 days.
He was appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court on April 23, 2012.
Along with three senior-most Judges of the apex court -- Justices J. Chelameswar, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- Justice Gogoi held an unprecedented press conference in January this year raising, among other things, questions over assigning cases to different judges by Chief Justice Misra.
Born on November 18, 1954, Justice Gogoi was enrolled as an advocate in 1978. He practised in the Gauhati High Court on constitutional, taxation and company matters.
He was appointed as a permanent judge of the Gauhati High Court on February 28, 2001. On September 9, 2010, he was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
He was appointed as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court on February 12, 2011.
Justice Gogoi is presiding over a bench also having Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman that is monitoring the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam.
He also heads a the bench that is hearing a plea for setting up special courts to exclusively try criminal cases against the sitting and former lawmakers across the country.
In pursuance to his December 2017 order, 12 special courts were set up across the country to try criminal cases against the politicians.
The emphasis is that in pursuance to 2014 direction of the top court, the trial in criminal cases against the lawmakers should conclude in one year.
Justice Gogoi had on Wednesday said that if required they would monitor the compliance of its order as it asked 19 States and six Union territories to give the details of the number of cases pending against the lawmakers in these states.
He is also on the bench along with Chief Justice Misra hearing the Sahara matter.
Justice Gogoi had pulled up Justice Markandey Katju for adversely commenting on a top court judgment in which it had set aside the death sentence of a Kerala man accused of raping and murdering a young woman in 2011.
Justice Katju had retired as judge of the Supreme Court on September 19, 2011.
The bench headed by Justice Gogoi had on November 11, 2016 issued notice to Justice Katju as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for casting aspersion against the judges in one of his blogs relating to a case.
However, contempt proceedings were shelved on January 6, 2017, after the court accepted unconditional apology tendered by him.
Following the principle of seniority, Chief Justice Misra picked Justice Gogoi, the senior-most judge of the top court after him.
As per convention, the outgoing Chief Justice sends the recommendation for his successor 30 days before he is to demit office so that the Chief Justice-designate is named well in time.
If the recommendation is cleared by the Central government, Justice Gogoi will be administered the oath of office by President Ram Nath Kovind on October 3.
CJI Misra is retiring on October 2. But as the day is a national holiday on account of Mahatma Gandhi's birth anniversary, October 1 will be his last working day.
The Union Law Ministry had in August last week urged the Chief Justice to recommend his successor.
Justice Gogoi is one of the four Supreme Court judges who had held an unprecedented press conference in January this year, raising concerns about the administration in the apex court, saying it was "not in order".
The other three were Justice J. Chelameswar (now retired), Justice M.B. Lokur and Justice Kurian Joseph.
Justice Gogoi is from Assam and he headed the special bench that is monitoring the updation of the National Register of Citizens to identify citizens in that state.
Born in 1954, Justice Gogoi joined the Bar in 1978. He was appointed a Permanent Judge of the Gauhati High Court on February 28, 2001.
He was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court in September 2010 and went on to become its Chief Justice in February 2011. He was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court in April 2012.
A bench headed by Justice J. Chelameswar on Monday told senior counsel Kapil Sibal "come back tomorrow" as the latter mentioned the matter for listing for an early hearing.
This came after two Congress Rajya Sabha members Pratap Singh Bajwa and Amee Yajnik moved the top court challenging the rejection of opposition's impeachment notice by Rajya Sabha Chairman Naidu.
Bajwa and Yajnik are signatories to the notice for impeachment that was rejected by Naidu last month.
Sibal told the court that since the matter involved the Chief Justice, it could not be mentioned before him.
He also told the bench that rejection of the notice for impeachment raised "serious constitutional issues" and involved interpretation of constitutional provisions.
"The demise of Justice P.N. Bhagwati is saddening. He was a stalwart of India's legal fraternity. My deepest condolences," Modi said in a tweet on Thursday.
"Justice PN Bhagwati's remarkable contributions made our judicial system more accessible and gave voice to millions.
Bhagwati died in Delhi on Thursday, a few days after he was admitted to a Delhi hospital with a brief illness. He was 95.
Known for introducing and pioneering Public Interest Litigation, Bhagwati had also participated in India's freedom movement.
Chief Justice of India from July 12, 1985, to December 20, 1986, Bhagwati was born on December 21, 1921, and studied in Bombay. The son of N.H. Bhagwati, who went on to become a Supreme Court judge, he began his law practice at the Bombay High Court and was elevated to the bench of the Gujarat High Court in 1960. He became its Chief Justice in 1967 and a Supreme Court judge in 1973.
Naidu held extensive consultations with top legal and constitutional experts before taking the decision, they said.
The rejection of the notice comes a day after he held the consultations with such experts to determine the maintainability of the motion.
The sources said Vice President Naidu met several experts after he re-scheduled his travel plans considering the seriousness of the matter.
Seven opposition parties led by the Congress had last week moved a notice before him for impeachment of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) on five grounds of "misbehavior".
This is the first time ever that an impeachment notice has been filed against a sitting CJI.
"Impeachment notice against the CJI should be given on rare occasion. There is no point in demeaning the post of the CJI," BJD spokesperson Amar Prasad Satpathy told reporters here.
Seven Opposition parties, led by the Congress, on Friday initiated an unprecedented step to impeach the Chief Justice of India, moving a notice accusing him of "misbehaviour" and "misuse" of authority.
Leveling five specific allegations, leaders of the Opposition parties met Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu, who is also the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and handed him over the notice of impeachment bearing signatures of 64 MPs and seven former MPs, who recently retired.
Misra is the 45th Chief Justice of India and the third from Odisha to occupy the country's highest judicial post.
Earlier, Justice Ranganath Misra (21st) and Justice Gopal Ballav Patnaik (32nd) have held the post.
However, there was no confirmation about the move from the Congress and its senior leaders avoided questions on the matter.
Confirming the development, NCP leader Majeed Memon said, "The Congress as the largest opposition party has belatedly initiated the proceedings for impeachment of the Chief Justice of India."
Asked how many MPs have signed the notice so far, he said he was just a signatory to it and the question be posed to the Congress.
Another NCP parliamentarian D P Tripathi said, "I have signed it and others are also signing it and the process is going on."
He said it is not just corruption, but "the charges are far more serious" and it emanates from the letter that four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court had earlier written stating that there was danger to the independence of judiciary.
Tripathi confirmed that among the signatories to the notice were members of NCP, CPI-M, CPI and others, and indicated that some Congress leaders too signed it.
The Samajwadi Party also said that it supports the petition. "The Samajwadi Party stands with the impeachment motion, which is about bringing independence and unquestionable integrity to the judiciary," SP leader Ghanshyam Tiwari told the media.
To move an impeachment motion against the CJI, signatures of 100 MPs are needed in Lok Sabha and in Rajya Sabha, signatures of 50 members are required.
Sources said leaders of several opposition parties today met and discussed the issue with the Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Ghulam Nabi Azad. Azad's office, however, did not confirm whether any such meeting took place.
The sources added that opposition leaders including those from Trinamool Congress, NCP and the CPI(M) held discussions on the matter over the past few days.
The meeting between the CJI and four judges-- Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- lasted for around 10-15 minutes before resumption of court proceedings at 10:30 am, court sources said.
They said that no other judge was present at the meeting.
Yesterday, the meeting could not take place as Justice Chelameswar was indisposed.
In an unprecedented presser on January 12, the four senior-most judges of the apex court had raised a litany of problems, including assigning of cases in the top court, and said there were certain issues afflicting the country's highest court.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that besides the CJI, the committee would include a senior most apex court judge or a high court judge, as the case may be in the committee.
The bench also comprising Justices R F Nariman and Navin Sinha proposed setting up of a permanent secretariat which would collate all information of a candidate who would be considered for confirming of senior designation by the permanent committee.
Besides the CJI and senior most SC/HC judge, the committee would also include a representative of the bar and Attorney General in case of apex court and Advocate General in case of high courts.
While deciding the issue of designating a lawyer as senior advocate, the committee would also consider aspects such as number of years put in the practise, judgements in cases to which a lawyer has been a part, the pro bono litigations and the test of personality.
A lawyer will have to undergo the test of personality in which he will be interviewed for being designated as a senior lawyer.
The bench also made it clear that the permanent secretariat will put the name of candidates being considered for senior designation on the website for inviting suggestions of stakeholders.
It said after the names are considered and approved by the permanent committee, the name will be put before the full court (involving SC/HC judges as the case may be) which will decide to accord senior designation to an advocate either unanimously or majority through secret ballot.
Justice Khehar said that potential for international arbitration is increasing due to foreign investment.
Speaking at a two-day seminar 'Engaging Asia Arbitration Summit', the CJI said government's 'Make in India' scheme will make the country a favoured market among the emerging ones.
"At the highest level of planning in Indian government, efforts are on that neither the government nor its agencies will have interference in international arbitration process.
The zero interference by the government will give room for foreign traders in India that the process here is neutral...
"In my view, it will promote further confidence of traders in arbitration in the country," he said.
Justice Khehar noted that India has a talent pool of lawyers and arbitrators and the future of international commercial arbitration in Asia must commence from India. PTI SKV AG RRT
Law education of the students would remain incomplete if it doesn't help the growth of an inclusive society, he said while delivering the 3rd convocation address of National Law University of Odisha here.
"The society will look up to you as a torch-bearer of rule of law and an inclusive society cannot develop in isolation," justice Thakur said, while asking the law graduates to listen to the voices from various backgrounds, regardless of their caste, creed and gender and to be tolerant to accommodate their viewpoints.
"Legal education creates an acceptable and conducive environment for the disadvantaged and underprivileged sections of our society, who are often neglected and left behind due to economic disparity, undeserved neglect and many other social evils," he said.
He urged the law graduates to live up to their vows by transcending the traditional role of a lawyer and providing help and assistance to those who are distressed and exploited both by state and non-state actors.
A total of 108 students received LLB degrees, 25 LLM degrees and two were awarded with PhD. A total of 17 gold medals in different categories were awarded to the students for their outstanding performances.
Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik, Justice Dipak Misra of the Supreme Court, who is also the visitor of the University, and Chief Justice of Orissa High Court Vineet Saran, who is also the Chancellor of the University, were present on the occasion.
After the allegation leveled by a former employee of the Supreme Court was reported by a section of the media, a three-member bench of the apex court, headed by the Chief Justice and including Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Sanjeev Khanna, held an urgent hearing this morning -- a holiday -- over the matter.
The bench said the judiciary "cannot be made a scapegoat" and that the media should not publish the woman's complaint without verifying its truth.
The Chief Justice said the sexual harassment charge against him is "unbelievable" and he would "not stoop too low even to deny these allegations."
He said the issue has been brought out days before a bench headed by him is scheduled to hear "many, many sensitive cases". This is also the month of the Lok Sabha elections in the country, he noted.
"I don't think it's just a plot of a junior court assistant. There is a larger design. Someone wants to deactivate the office of the CJI. My bench is set to hear some important cases next week, and this could be an attempt to dissuade me from hearing these matters," Justice Gogoi said.
"There has to be a bigger force behind this. There are two offices -- one of the Prime Minister and one of the CJI. They want to deactivate the office of the CJI," he said.
"I will sit on this bench and discharge my duties without fear and favour till my tenure is over. This is the reward a CJI gets after 20 years of service," he said.
Justice Gogoi, who assumed the office of the CJI on October 3, 2018, will retire on November 17 this year.
Contending that "there is a larger conspiracy to destabilise the judiciary which has remained independent," the Chief Justice asked, "In view of such baseless charges, why would any person want to become a judge as reputation is all that the judges have, and that too, under attack?"
The Chief Justice requested Justice Mishra to take a call on passing a judicial order.
Dictating the order, Justice Mishra said, "Having considered the matter, we refrain from passing any judicial order at this moment, leaving it to the wisdom of the media to show restraint, act responsibly as is expected from them and accordingly decide what should or should not be published, as wild and scandalous allegations undermine and irreparably damage reputation and negate independence of judiciary.
"We would, therefore, at this juncture, leave it to the media to take off such material which is undesirable."
Anguished over the charges, the Chief Justice said, "The judiciary of this country is under very serious threat. We will not allow this to happen...Nobody can catch me on money. People have to find something and they have found this."
He said he has a bank balance of Rs 6.80 lakh and Rs 40 lakh in provident fund, after being in the judiciary for around two decades.
The three-judge special bench was constituted after a news portal reported on Saturday that a woman had levelled allegations in a sworn affidavit, copies of which were sent to the residences of 22 apex court judges.
Supreme Court Secretary General Sanjeev Sudhakar Kalgaonkar confirmed that a letter from the woman has been received by several sitting judges, but said the allegations are malafide and have no basis.
Kalgaonkar said there are "some mischievous forces" behind the allegation.
"It appears that these false allegations are being made as a pressure tactics to somehow come out of the various proceedings which have been initiated in law against her family, for their wrongdoings. It is also very possible that there are mischievous forces behind all this," he said in an email response.
Giving details of the nature of employment of the complainant, Kalgaonkar said the woman was posted at a level equal to a lower division clerk as a routine exercise regarding postings at the home of the Chief Justice of India.
The registry said the complainant was not the lone appointee in the Chief Justice's home office, and there were additionally nearly five to six people in the office during her course of employment.
The Secretary General said the complainant worked as a part of the home office of Chief Justice only for a short period, and given the nature of her duties, she had no occasion to interact directly with the Chief Justice.
And, she was dismissed from service as per procedure for inappropriate conduct, he added.
The Secretary General said the complainant's allegation regarding the sacking of her brother-in-law, who was associated with Delhi Police, was unfounded.
"He was terminated due to unsatisfactory conduct and performance on duty, as he was a temporary employee," Kalgaonkar said.
A compliant has been registered by the registry of the Supreme Court against the woman for allegedly making unsolicited calls or uninvited approaches to the office of the Chief Justice after being dismissed for "inappropriate conduct".
The Secretary General said a criminal case is pending against the complainant for allegedly taking bribe to promise employment in the Supreme Court.
"It would be extremely relevant to mention that the concerned individual and her family have criminal antecedents," the Secretary General said in the email.
He said the complainant never raised the issue, or registered a formal complaint either during her tenure in the apex court or after the termination of her employment.
The Secretary General said the secretariat of the Chief Justice had reported regarding the complainant's misbehavior, which was cited for moving her out of the office.
None of the apex court judges have initiated hearings in their respective courtrooms, which is unusual as the top court is in session by 10.30 a.m. usually.
The associations said that the allegations of an ex-employee of the Supreme Court should be dealt with as per established procedure of law, which must apply in every case "uniformly".
The SCBA has sought action by the "Full Court of the Supreme Court" into the allegations of sexual harassment against Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.
"That procedure adopted for conducting the court proceedings on April 20, in the matter of ex-employee of Supreme Court against the CJI is in violation of procedure established by law as well as principles of natural justice," the SCBA said in a resolution.
The Executive Committee (EC) of the SCBA has decided to collate all the relevant material and facts with respect to the allegations, which may be considered by it in its next meeting.
Earlier, the SCAORA said that it strongly disapproves the manner in which the complaint was dealt, and it seeks inquiry and action in the matter.
The association said it "seeks immediate appointment of a committee headed by full court of Supreme Court to impartially investigate and inquire into the allegations made against the CJI, and give independent findings into the matter".
CJI Gogoi had convened a Special Bench on Saturday morning after the media published allegations of sexual harassment against him.
The Special Bench addressed the allegations levelled by a former apex court staffer. The CJI denied the allegations, saying the complainant has criminal antecedents and that there is a larger force behind these attempts which are part of a conspiracy to unsettle the judiciary.
The Chief Justice also said that he will continue to discharge his duties and complete his full tenure.
Although the CJI sat on the Special Bench with Justices Arun Mishra and Sanjiv Khanna, the court order, however, did not bear his name. The propriety of such an urgent hearing has been questioned, following the order.
A bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Deepak Gupta will meet all the three officers in their chambers at 12.30 p.m.
Justice Gupta said, "We are not disclosing anything in the affidavit (submitted by lawyer Bains in a sealed cover). Very serious issues have been raised."
The court said that further hearing in the matter will be held at 3 p.m. today.
The top court also directed the Directors of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Intelligence Bureau (IB), besides the Delhi Police Commissioner to cooperate with Justice Patnaik as and when required.
The court gave the directions during a hearing on an affidavit filed by advocate Utsav Bains, who has alleged a conspiracy against the Chief Justice after a former Supreme Court staffer alleged sexual harassment.
Justice Patnaik, after completing his probe, shall file the report before the bench in a sealed cover, the top court said.
It said the case will be listed after J. Patnaik files his report.
The bench also said that the inquiry by Justice Patnaik shall not affect the proceedings of the Supreme Court.
While ordering the Justice Patnaik inquiry, the court said Bains would be bound to disclose all documents. Earlier, Bains had claimed that he had sensitive information that cannot be disclosed.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, while speaking to reporters after the order, said the Chief Justice cannot be the master of the roster anymore and that his administrative and judicial work should be suspended till the sexual harassment allegations against him are looked into.
A statement issued by the top court said: "The in-house committee has found no substance in the allegations contained in the complaint dated April 19, 2019, of a former employee of the Supreme Court of India."
The in-house panel comprised Justice S.A. Bobde, the second most senior judge in the apex court, Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Indu Malhotra.
The committee submitted its report on May 5, in accordance with the "in-house procedure to the next senior most judge competent to receive the report and also sent a copy of the report to the judge concerned, namely the Chief Justice India."
The court also said that the "in-house procedure was not liable to be made public."
On Sunday, the apex court had issued a statement declining that Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Rohinton Nariman had met Justice Bobde, who was heading the panel probing the sexual harassment allegations against Gogoi.
It was claimed that Chandrachud and Nariman had met the members of the in-house committee on the evening of May 3 to register their concerns over continuing with the probe against the CJI in the absence of the complainant.
In a press release issued on Sunday, SC Secretary General Sanjeev Kalgaonkar said: "This is wholly incorrect. The in-house committee which is deliberating on the issue concerning the honourable Chief Justice of India deliberates on its own without any input from any other honourable judge of this court."
On April 30, the former employee of the Supreme Court, who had accused the CJI of sexually harassing her, had said that she would no longer appear before the in-house panel set up by the apex court to probe her charges as she felt that she was "not likely to get justice".
The woman said she felt "quite intimidated and nervous" in the presence of the three Supreme Court judges.
In a statement to the media, she had expressed serious reservations over the functioning of the panel, saying it was "an in-house committee of sitting judges junior to the CJI and not an external committee as I had requested..."
The woman said that during the panel's hearing on April 26, the judges told her that it was neither an in-house committee proceeding nor a proceeding under the Vishakha Guidelines and that it was an informal proceeding.
"I was asked to narrate my account, which I did to the best of my ability even though I felt quite intimidated and nervous in the presence of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court and without having a lawyer or support person with me," she said.
The committee was formed after the woman on April 19 levelled allegations of sexual harassment against Chief Justice Gogoi, reportedly in a letter addressed to 22 judges of the Supreme Court.
Interestingly, the court's direction came after learning that the hearing in the contempt case against Rahul Gandhi had been segregated and posted for that date.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi said: "We are a little perplexed that the two cases (Rahul's contempt and Rafale) have been segregated."
The CJI said the court would certainly want to complete hearing of the review petitions on May 10. The three-judge bench, also comprising Justice K.M. Joseph and S.K. Kaul, insisted that the hearing of both cases should be held together.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to break for summer recess after May 10.
The CJI queried regarding the listing of matters before the court. He said: "How it is possible, this (Rafale review petitions) has come today and the other matter listed on May 10...?"
The CJI emphasised that there was an order to hear both matters together. "Then why it has to come up today?" was the CJI's query.
The petitions in the Rafale case have been filed by former Union Ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist-advocate Prashant Bhushan. They are seeking a review of the December 14 verdict of the top court which dismissed the plea seeking probe into alleged irregularities in the Rafale deal.
In its recent affidavit, the Centre opposed the review of the December 14 judgement stating that the Rafale deal has no apparent error.
A three-judge in-house committee, comprising Madras High Court Chief Justice Indira Banerjee, Sikkim High Court Chief Justice S K Agnihotri and Madhya Pradesh High Court's Justice P K Jaiswal, had in January 2018 concluded there was sufficient substance in the allegations contained in the complaint against Justice Shukla and that the aberrations were serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for his removal.
Following the committee's report, the then CJI Dipak Misra, in accordance with the relevant in-house procedure, advised Justice Shukla to either resign or seek voluntary retirement forthwith.
After he refused to do so, the then CJI had asked the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to withdraw judicial work from him with immediate effect, after which he reportedly went on a long leave.
On Match 23, Justice Shukla wrote a letter to Gogoi which was forwarded by the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, requesting that he be allowed to discharge judicial work in the high court.
"As the allegations against Justice Shukla were found by the committee to be so serious as to warrant the initiation of proceedings for his removal, he cannot be allowed to resume judicial work in any high court. In these circumstances, you are requested to consider further action," Gogoi wrote to the PM.
When the CJI writes to the President and the prime minister for removal of a high court judge, the Rajya Sabha chairperson appoints a three-judge inquiry committee in consultation with the CJI under the provisions of the Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968 to look into the allegations.
The committee appointed by the Rajya Sabha chairperson would examine the evidence and records, and opine if the same formed the basis for whether or not removal motion be debated in the Upper House.
Justice Shukla, who was heading a division bench in the high court, had allegedly defied the categorical restraint orders passed by a CJI-led bench of the apex court last year to permit private colleges to admit students for the 2017-18 academic session.
Two complaints, including one from the advocate general of the state, was received by the CJI on September 1, 2017 and the then CJI had constituted an in-house committee.
According to the inquiry committee report, Justice Shukla had "disgraced the values of judicial life, acted in a manner unbecoming of a judge", lowered the "majesty, dignity and credibility of his office" and acted in breach of his oath of office.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi allowed Iltijia Javed to visit Srinagar, provided she first takes permission from the concerned district authorities.
The court said that she can meet Mufti in private on a date of her choice.
Attorney General K.K. Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, had opposed the plea, saying that she must approach the District Magistrate first.
The bench said that it is her privilege to move this forum. "What is the objection in her going to meet her mother," the bench said.
Iltija Javed, who is presently in Chennai, had claimed that her mother is under detention ever since the abrogation of Article 370 which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir.
Iltija Javed said that she was deeply concerned about her mother's health as she has been under detention for nearly a month now.
As the Chief Justice of India, Justice Ramana will have a term till August 26, 2022. Before his elevation to the Supreme Court on February 17, 2014, Justice Ramana was the chief justice of the Delhi High Court. Justice Ramana was appointed as judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2000. He has also been the acting Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh high Court.
On April 6, the President had signed on the appointment of Justice N.V. Ramana as the next Chief Justice of India. Justice Ramana took over as Chief Justice after the retirement of Justice S.A. Bobde on April 23.
In October 2020, a huge controversy had erupted as the Andhra Pradesh chief minister had written to the then Chief Justice alleging state’s High Court was being used to “destabilize and topple his democratically elected government”. The letter alleged that Justice Ramana was trying to control the High Court and also trying to influence cases, which impact the state government. However, an in-house inquiry did not find any merit in these allegations.
Justice Ramana has presided over several high-profile cases in the top court. In March last year, Justice Ramana headed five-judge Constitution bench which declined to refer to a larger seven-judge bench a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre’s decision to revoke provisions of Article 370, which gave special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, January last year, Justice Ramana expounded on the nature of fundamental rights and declared that the right to freedom of speech and expression over the internet is a fundamental right. This judgment ensured the eventual return of internet in the Kashmir Valley.
In Foundation for Media Professionals v. State (UT OF J&K) matter, where petitioners sought high-speed internet, Justice Ramana headed bench which balanced the fundamental rights and the concerns of the state security and appointed a special committee to ensure that restrictions, if required, are narrowly tailored and not permanent in nature.
Justice Ramana also headed a three-judge bench which dealt with the legal questions emerging from the resignation of 17 rebel MLAs of Congress and JDS of Karnataka. Justice Ramana headed bench, also ordered expediting trial in pending cases against former and sitting MPs and MLAs.
Justice Bobde will be sworn in as Chief Justice on November 18 and will serve the post for around 18 months. He will retire on April 23, 2021.
Incumbent Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi on October 18 had recommended Justice Bobde, the second senior-most judge, as his successor.
His career as Justice began on March 29, 2000 when he was appointed as Additional Judge in the Bombay High Court, and was elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court on April 12, 2013.
His remarkable work took him to the high post and thereafter he was sworn in as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court on October 16, 2012. He was born on April 24, 1956 in Nagpur, Maharashtra.
He completed graduation and obtained a law degree from Nagpur University. He was enrolled on the roll of the Bar Council of Maharashtra in 1978 and was designated as Senior Advocate in 1998.
Justice Bobde was part of the five-judge constitution bench hearing longest running Ayodhya land dispute case in which the judgement is still awaited. He was part of the in-house panel which has handled one of the most controversial cases related to allegations of sexual harassment against the incumbent Chief Justice.
This in-house bench headed by Justice Bobde has given a clean chit to Gogoi, saying "no substance" was found in the allegation levelled by a former employee.
Justice Gogoi was the 46th Chief Justice of India, who took charge on October 3, 2018 and will demit office on November 17.
Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Sanjeev Khanna and Deepak Gupta pronounced that the Chief Justice Office is as a public authority under RTI, and upheld the Delhi High Court verdict of 2010.
The apex court has passed three judgments -- one by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Deepak Gupta, and two separate concurring judgments by Justices N.V. Ramana and D.Y. Chandrachud.
The court said: "Transparency and accountability go hand-in-hand, and the Chief Justice office comes under RTI regime."
Justice Khanna observed, "transparency only strengthens judicial independence".
Through this judgment, the apex court has junked the appeal filed by top court Secretary-General challenging the Delhi High Court order in holding the office of the Chief Justice amenable under the RTI.
The judgment of the apex court talks about conditional disclosure, on case to case basis. The top court also passed observation on right to privacy, and ruled that proactive disclosure by judges would further the judiciary's independence.
Justice Bobde, 63, succeeds Justice Ranjan Gogoi who demitted office on Sunday.
Justice Bobde took oath in English in the name of God at a brief ceremony held at the Durbar Hall of Rashtrapati Bhawan.
Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and several senior ministers were present at the oath-taking ceremony. Former vice president Hamid Ansari and former prime minister Manmohan Singh were also present.
Justice Bobde had said that he would prefer a conservative approach on the issue of disclosing the Collegium's entire deliberations on the rejection of names for appointment in the higher judiciary.
In an interview to PTI after being appointed as the CJI last month, he had said that people's reputation cannot be sacrificed just to satisfy the desire of citizens to know.
On the issue of huge vacancies of judges in courts across the country and lack of judicial infrastructure, Justice Bobde had said that he wishes to take to the "logical end" the steps taken by his predecessor CJI Gogoi.
A five-judge constitution bench, of which Justice Bobde was also a part, rendered a unanimous verdict to put the curtains down on the vexatious Ayodhya land dispute which was pending in courts since 1950.
A nine-judge bench of the apex court headed by the then CJI J S Khehar and which included Justice Bobde had held unanimously in August 2017 that the Right to Privacy was a constitutionally protected fundamental right in India.
Justice Bobde will have a tenure of over 17 months as the CJI and is due to retire on April 23, 2021.
Hailing from a family of lawyers from Maharashtra, he is the son of eminent senior advocate Arvind Shriniwas Bobde.
Justice Bobde also headed a three-member in-house committee which gave a clean chit to CJI Gogoi on a sexual harassment complaint against him by a former apex court staffer. The committee also included Justices Indira Banerjee and Indu Malhotra.
Justice Bobde was part of the three-judge bench which in 2015 clarified that no citizen of India without an Aadhaar card can be denied basic services and government services.
Recently, a two-judge bench headed by Justice Bobde directed the Committee of Administrators (CoA) headed by former Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) Vinod Rai, appointed by it for the purpose of running the BCCI administration, to demit office paving the way for elected members to run the affairs of the cricket board.
Born on April 24, 1956, in Nagpur, Maharashtra, Justice Bobde completed Bachelor of Arts and LLB degrees from Nagpur University. He was enrolled as an advocate of the Bar Council of Maharashtra in 1978.
Justice Bobde practised law at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court with appearances at Bombay before the Principal Seat and before the Supreme Court for over 21 years.
He was designated as a senior advocate in 1998.
Justice Bobde was elevated to the Bombay High Court on March 29, 2000, as Additional Judge and sworn in as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court on October 16, 2012.
He was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court on April 12, 2013.
Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, in his address at the felicitation function of the new Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, said: "There must be a fixed term of minimum three years for the Chief Justice of India, which will allow them the time to bring substantial changes."
"Today the tenure is set against their retirement... By the time they (the Chief Justice) decide to do something, they retire and also many are left with very little tenure to plan for some crucial reforms or changes... as they plan, the retirement day is there."
The AG also insisted that the retirement age of judges must be raised. "Age difference between Supreme Court Judge and High Court Judge is 65 & 62. Judges retirement age should be around 70 years," he suggested.
In a response to Venugopal's comments, the Chief Justice said the top law officer should tell all this to the government. "You should tell this to your client... we are ready to work," he said.
The Chief Justice batted for introducing artificial intelligence in the court management system, as it would streamline many cumbersome processes in the judicial system. He said the world is adopting these technologies, and therefore we should do the same.
He also emphasised on the mental health of the judges, saying that the focus should not just be on physical health but this too. The Chief Justice insisted that it is essential to remove the stigma attached to the mental health, and efforts should be made to provide professional help, adding that these reforms will help both judges and lawyers.
Chief Justice Bobde also stressed access to affordable legal aid, saying it is a concern for the people. He also made an observation on the practice of mentioning matters by lawyers before the superior courts, saying that at lot of times, mentioning, which is request by a lawyer for urgent hearing on the matter before the Chief Justice, is very uninformed, and the lawyers mentioning the matter are not qualified to address superior courts on the issue of urgency.
"I would urge the CJI and other senior judge that now there must be a mechanism to monitor the disposal of these cases so that India's stature as a proud country governed by rule of law must be restored at the earliest," Prasad said, and assured government funding for it.
"The women of the country are under pain and distress. They are crying for justice," he said.
The minister said there are 704 fast-track courts for heinous offences and others and the government is in the process of setting up 1,123 dedicated courts for POCSO and rape offences.
"In the law relating to women violence, we have already laid down capital punishment and other severe punishment including completion of trial in two months time," he added.
He also said India's judiciary, be it the Supreme Court, high courts or subordinate courts, has upheld the principles of the rule of law. But, he stressed, the need to attract more talent in subordinate judiciary.
"We need to reflect more on having attraction of talent in our subordinate judiciary. We should have a good talent pool of judges. The time has come that we need to have greater induction of talent in the judiciary," he said.
The minister was speaking at a function for inauguration of a new building of the Rajasthan High court in Jodhpur.
(PTI)
The Chief Justice's remarks gain significance in the backdrop of "encounter" killings of four persons accused of rape-murder of a veterinarian by Telangana police. The police have faced criticism from various sections, although people at large have hailed the "punishment".
While inaugurating a new building of the Rajasthan High Court, the Chief Justice said, "Recent events in the country have sparked an old debate with new vigour. There is no doubt that criminal justice system must reconsider its position, reconsider its attitude towards time, towards laxity and towards the eventual time it takes to dispose of a criminal matter.
"But I don't think justice can ever be, and ought to be, instant. Justice must never take the form of revenge. I believe justice loses its character of justice if it becomes revenge."
The CJI said, "There is a need in the judiciary to invoke self-correcting measures, whether those measures should be publicised can be a matter of debate. But I believe the institution must correct itself as indeed it did during the much-criticised press conference (in 2018)".
The CJI was apparently referring to a press conference by four senior judges of the Supreme Court in January 2018, accusing then CJI Dipak Misra of violating conventions and allowing the executive to interfere in court affairs. All the four judges have since retired.
"We have to device methods for speeding up litigation. There are laws which provide for free litigation mediation and I take this opportunity to say why we should not have compulsory free litigation mediation across all district courts.
"Surprisingly no courses are available for conferring a degree or diploma in mediation. We have taken the initiative and have asked the Bar Council of India to work on this," he said.
Bobde said he envisages utilisation of Artificial Intelligence to improve the efficiency of justice administration system.
(IANS)
A bench, headed by Chief Justice Bobde and comprising Justices S.A. Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, observed that the courtroom was packed to the last bit and it was extremely difficult to hear arguments advanced by senior advocate Kapil Sibal in connection with the urgent mentioning of the matter. The court said this overcrowding has become a critical problem, and it leads people pushing each other.
Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the Centre on the CAA matter, said: "This is a problem not only in courtrooms, but also on the corridors".
The Chief Justice said that they may look into engaging specialists on this movement of people on the court premises. He also insisted on convening a meeting of law officers, and senior advocates to come out with a workable solution to control the crowd.
As a lawyer mentioned that women are also being pushed, the Chief Justice replied: "Why should men be pushed...pushing is inhumane."
Sibal suggested the Supreme Court Bar Association can be involved to ensure lawyers follow rules and discipline. The Attorney General, in the previous hearing, cited the example of the Pakistan Supreme Court where a lectern is set up for a lawyer to stand argue the matter.
(IANS)
The observation from the Chief Justice came during the mentioning of an application filed by the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association (SCWLA), through advocate Sneha Kalita, to consider elevating experienced women lawyers from the top court as High Court’s judges, as a step to increase the number of women judges in the judiciary. SCWLA, in the application, said women’s participation in the justice delivery system is an important factor for societal progress and gender equality.
Chief Justice Bobde said, “We think the time has come for woman Chief Justice of India. Kalita submitted the memorandum of procedure (MoP), but does not have a whisper on women judges’ appointment.”
The bench also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Surya Kant replied: “Chief Justices of High Courts stated that when lawyers are asked to come on the bench, they deny saying that they have domestic responsibility or their children are in class 11 or 12.” The bench clarified that this information has been communicated to the court, when women lawyers declined to accept judgeship.
The bench said, “we have the interest of women in mind only and that, we need only capable candidates.” Concluding the hearing in the matter, the Chief Justice said we will deliberate what to say in the matter, however the top court did not issue notice.
The application filed by SCWLA highlighted the “abysmally low” 11.04 per cent share of women as judges in higher judiciary. The application also gave a chart on women judges presently posted in various High Courts across the country. “From the chart it is reflected that, from the 1,080 of sanctioned strength of judges (including both Permanent and Additional Judges) we have 661 number of judges out of which, only 73 are women judges which accounts for a 11.04 of women judges”, said the plea.
The women lawyer association sought from the top court to issue an appropriate order/direction to the Secretary, Department of Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice, government of India to expedite the process of inclusion and appointment of women judges on meritorious ground to the respective Supreme Court and High Court benches.
Chief Justice Bobde will retire on April 23.
Justice Ramana was appointed to the Supreme Court on February 17, 2014. Justice Ramana will take over as the Chief Justice on April 24.
According to a source familiar with the development, Chief Justice Bobde sent a letter to the Centre confirming Justice Ramana as the next Chief Justice.
Justice Ramana will have a tenure of over 16 months as the Chief Justice.
Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had sent a letter to Justice Bobde seeking his recommendation. The government had asked the incumbent Chief Justice to recommend his successor.
As per the Memorandum of Procedure governing the appointment of members of the higher judiciary, "appointment to the office of the Chief Justice of India should be of the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court considered fit to hold the office".