|
304,
Hari Chambers, 3rd Floor, 54/68, S.B.S. Marg, Near Lion Gate, Fort
Mumbai- 400 023
Cell
# +91 9820 5354289 , 022 22626634
|
Mathews
J. Nedumpara
President
|
Mrs.
Rohini M. Amin
Vice
President
Mumbai
|
Ms.
Sophia Pinto Vice President
Bangalore
|
K.
Lingaraja
Vice
President Delhi
|
A. C. Philip
Vice
president, Cochin
|
Navaneetha Krishnan T
General
Secretary
|
__ October, 2014
To
1)
Hon'ble Shri
Narendra Modi,
Prime
Minister of India,
New
Delhi.
2)
Hon'ble Shri Justice H.L. Dattu,
Chief Justice of India,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.
Also
to:
3)
Hon'ble Shri Arun Jaitley,
Finance
Minister,
Government
of India,
New
Delhi.
4) Hon'ble
Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad,
Minister
for Law & Justice,
Government
of India,
New
Delhi.
5)
All Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme
Court,
6)
Hon'ble Chairman,
Law
Commission of India,
14th Floor, Hindustan Times House
Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi – 110 001
7)
Leader of Opposition,
9, Safdarjang Road,
New Delhi- 110 011.
8) All Members of Parliament,
9) The Press,
10) The Public at large.
Hon'ble
Sirs,
Sub: Seeking audience with the Hon'ble Prime
Minster to press for advertisement of vacancies of Judges of the Supreme Court
and High Courts, and their open and transparent selection instead of the cabal
system where Judges appoint themselves, video-recording of Court proceedings
and introduction of a mechanism to address complaints of misconduct, corruption
etc. against Judges.
Since
I have addressed the Hon'ble Prime Minister, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of
India, the Hon'ble Union Law Minister and other constitutional dignitaries on
the above subject umpteen times during the last more than five years and since
our demands would certainly have come to their kind notice, I believe I can well afford to be brief,
so that the Hon'ble Prime Minister and the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India could
personally go through this letter.
2.
We, about 50
campaigners from different parts of the country, under the aegis of the
National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms and People’s
Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, camped in Delhi for a week during
August, 2014 and met Hon'ble Shri Justice R.M. Lodha, former Chief Justice of India,
and Hon'ble Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad, the Union Law Minister. Hon'ble Shri Justice Lodha in principle
agreed to our demands. His Lordship was
fully aware of the fact that Judges-2 case and the collegium system of
selection of Judges, an offspring of the judgments in Judges-2 and Judges-3
cases, has meant an end to the concept of diversity in judicial appointments. Late Chief Minister of Kerala, E.M.S.
Namboodiripad and Justice Krishna Iyer, and great men like them, had been
complaining that even under the system where the executive had a final say in
judicial appointments as was the case prior to 1994, there had been very little
diversity and the Judges as a class constitute to be drawn out from the elite. The demand from the public at large then was
to bring an end to the elite occupying the seat of justice of superior Courts
and to bring greater diversity and representation.
3. While matters stood thus, I
must say with an apology and with utmost respect to Shri Fali S. Nariman, a
Writ Petition was filed in the name of Supreme Court Advocates on Record
Association and in the name of independence of judiciary, Constitution was torn
into pieces and a collegium system where Judges appoint themselves was given
birth to. Bringing the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act,
2014 was a step in the right direction, belated though, to undo the mischief
caused by Judges-2 and Judges-3 cases.
Shri Fali Nariman, though acknowledged to be the greatest jurist of the
day and a great human being, which I too endorse, unfortunate though, certainly
not knowing the mischief and damage he has caused to the people of this country
and the institution of judiciary, came forward, shockingly though, to oppose
the aforesaid two Bills which intended to foster open and transparent selection
of Judges. We felt that Shri Fali
Nariman coming in the open against the National Judicial Appointment Commission
Bill, 2014 is a part of the clever strategy to make it appear that there is
something seriously wrong with the said Bill; that the Government has sinister
motive to control the judiciary; and that the independence of judiciary is at peril,
while the legal fraternity at large across the breadth and width of the country,
except a small minority of Narimans and Jethmalanis and the elite class of
lawyers who are immensely benefited out of the current system of dispensation
of justice where justice is delivered depending upon the so-called ‘face value’
of Harish Salves, Abhishek Singhvis et al.
A major Section among us felt that the Writ Petition by the Supreme
Court Advocates on Record Association is only to please the Judges who have
vested interest in the current system where they appoint themselves. Otherwise, nobody whose sanity cannot be
questioned has reason to opposite the National Judicial Appointment Commission
Bill, 2014. The reason is simple. Out of the six members, three are the Chief
Justice of India and two seniormost Judges of the Supreme Court. There is only one representative of the
Government, the Law Minister. The two
eminent persons to be part of the Commission are to be jointly selected by a
Committee comprising the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and the Leader
of the Opposition. There is no
representation for the lay people and the Commission contemplated is heavily
loaded in favour of the judiciary.
4. We, the campaigners,
recently happened to come across an order of the Supreme Court, a copy of which
is annexed for ready reference, which directs a few ordinary citizens, who
instituted a SLP and eventually lost, to pay a cost of Rs.1 crore. The order says that 50% of the said amount
should be paid to the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association. If ordinary people question the bona fides of
the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association pleading for the cause of the
Judges to retain their power to appoint themselves, they cannot be blamed. The ordinary people say that the Supreme
Court Advocates on Record Association is an alter ego of the collegium, though
I do not intend to say so. We, in the
last couple of months, have been on the difficult task of collecting data on
the question as to what factors in the selection of Judges of the Supreme Court
and High Courts. The result is
shocking. Every single appointment since
1994, except a few, was on considerations other than merit. I do not intend to say that all the Judges
selected through the collegium system are not deserving. On the contrary, many are exceptionally
deserving. But even in their cases, the
appointment would not have taken place but for a Godfather. The role of a Godfather is far truer where
appointments were at a young age. Dr.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud was appointed because of his father Justice Y.V.
Chandrachud, a former Chief Justice of India.
Presently there are seven sitting Judges in the Bombay High Court who
are sons of the same Court. The data
which we could collect is incomplete; the process is going on. A copy of what we could collect so far is
enclosed for ready reference.
5. We may be pardoned in
asserting that innumerable sons and daughters of former Judges are on the Bench
today. This system cannot be allowed to
continue even for a moment. The
Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial
Appointment Commission Act, 2014 alone will not afford the answer. The answer to the present cabal system of appointment
is to advertise the vacancies, invite applications from eligible candidates and
references and recommendations from all stakeholders, including sitting and
retired Judges, Bar Associations etc., short-listing of applications,
references and recommendations, notification to the public at large names of
those selected, and afford them an opportunity to raise their objections, if
any, against a particular candidate. The
advertisement and open selection can be brought into immediate effect even
without any piece of legislation. All
that is required is framing of appropriate guidelines by the Law Ministry in
consultation with the Chief Justice of India, even the collegium, though a
proper legislation on the subject would be more ideal. Your Excellencies would have noticed that in
this letter we have used strong expression, even given names of individuals,
not without a reason. We did not do so
out of any illwill or malice, but there are occasions when there is a duty to
speak, even while to do so will cause embarrassment and unpleasantness to the
speaker. I have written this letter as a
whistleblower. I know that I have
displeased many and have invited their wrath and enmity, not that I wanted to
cause any disaffection or pain to anyone I have named but because the cause
which I highlight requires me to do so.
6. I have the highest of faith
in and the greatest of respect for the Hon'ble Prime Minister and the Hon'ble
Chief Justice of India. I am sure the
Private Secretaries to Their Excellencies will bring this letter to their
personal notice. I part with the words
of Victor Hugo, “no army can stop an idea
whose time has come”.
With respectful regards,
Yours sincerely,
Encl:
Two, as above.
(Mathews J Nedumpara)
President
