Tuesday, October 20, 2009

The non-appointment of Justice Dinakaran

It is now official that the SC collegium will delink Justice Dinakaran from the other four Judges whom it recommended for appointment to the Supreme Court. I was amazed to read this story in TOI wherein a highly placed source has claimed that the collegium always keeps an open mind about its recommendations. Is that so? Then, why is it that the SC Collegium keeps its recommendations under wraps rather than disclose it through a press release? In this article in Frontline, I suggest that but for The Hindu's August 27 story on the collegium's recommendation, obtained through its exclusive sources, the Forum for Judicial Accountability would not have gathered the allegations against Justice Dinakaran and forwarded it to the Collegium. In other words, the Collegium owes it to the media for bringing to its notice that one of its recommended appointees has a controversial background which needed to be probed. Had The Hindu not carried the story on collegium's recommendations, the allegations would not have come to light, and the collegium would not have got an opportunity to review its decision. Therefore, if the Collegium indeed has an open mind, it must resolve to release its recommendations formally to the media, so as to subject the appointees to public scrutiny.

In my article, I also deal with the issue of non-consultation by the CJI with a senior SC Judge hailing from a State from which the appointee also hails. In this case, the present Collegium appears to have interpreted the 1993 SC Judgment in the Second Judges case narrowly by suggesting that a senior Judge from Karnataka (Justice Raveendran) was consulted, whereas two senior Judges hailing from Madras High Court were not consulted, even though Justice Dinakaran had spent much of his tenure there.

2 comments:

Pranav Sachdeva said...

You say, "I was amazed to read this story in TOI wherein a highly placed source has claimed that the collegium always keeps an open mind about its recommendations. Is that so?".

You will amazed to read what Dhananjay Mahapatra writes. Everything is nice and fair in our judiciary, if you believe him. Of course he has to source news from senior judges, that's why he never offends them. Manoj Mitta of ToI or Nagendra Sharma and Satya Praksah of HT are three upright journalists whom one can rely upon to not mince words and give the true picture of the judiciary.

Legally Speaking said...

From: Sandeep Jalan, Janhit Manch, Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai.
To: Shri K G Balakrishnan, the CJI, Shri Veerappa Moily, the Minister of Law & Justice


Whereas Justice Dinakaran is accused of land grabbing with documentary evidences....

And whereas according to one SC Judgment no FIR can be registered against any Judge....

And yet FIR can be registered against Mr Dinakaran [not against Justice Dinakaran], for the offence of land grabbing was committed in an individual capacity.....

And whereas the bar to register any FIR against any Judge is on the premise where any Judge has been accused of corruption in the due discharge of his duty as a Judge.....

This is exactly what the SC has said in one ruling where no sanction is required to prosecute a public servant accused of amassing wealth disproportionate to his income, for amassing wealth is not an act which can be said “in the due discharge of his duty”....

Act of criminality is outcome of an individual thought process.

Man accused of or convicted criminals shouldn't be called as representing to any Community, Religion or any institution for NO Religion, Community or Institution has Sanctions for any Criminal acts. Religions, communities and Institutions are beyond the scope of indulging in illegality or criminality.

Man accused of or a man convicted of any criminal act has allegiance to none except to himself.

I request the Hon'ble CJI/ Law Minister to sufficiently dwell into the matter.

I am etcetra-
Sandeep Jalan