Full court to investigate government interference on judiciary

DAINIK NATION BUREAU

Accusing the government of interfering in judicial appointments, Justice J Chelameswar, the senior most judge of the Supreme Court, has demanded a Full Court on the judicial side to deal with it.
“This matter is now ripe for the consideration of the Full Court on the judicial side, if this institution really is to be any more relevant in the scheme of the Constitution,” Justice Chelameswar wrote in his letter dated March 21 addressed to Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.
Justice Chelameswar, who is to retire on June 22, cited the inquiry initiated by Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Dinesh Maheswari against Belagavi District and Sessions Judge at the behest of the government after his name was cleared for elevation to the High Court.
“Someone from Bangalore has already beaten us in the race to the bottom. The Chief Justice has been more than willing to do the executive bidding, behind our back,” he wrote.
The inquiry against Judge Bhatt has reportedly been dropped after Justice Chelameswar’s letter.
“If the government had any reservations or misgivings about (Bhatt’s) nomination, it could have sent back the recommendation for our reconsideration — a well-established though long-forgotten practice. Instead, it sat tight on the file. In other words, our recommendation still retained its validity and legitimacy,” Justice Chelameswar wrote.
“For some time, our unhappy experience has been that the government’s accepting our recommendations is an exception and sitting on them is the norm. ‘Inconvenient’ but able judges or judges to be are being bypassed through this route,” wrote the judge — who had on January 12 rebelled against the CJI along with three other members of the collegium and held a press conference complaining against the style of functioning of Justice Misra.
“Let us also not forget that the bonhomie between the judiciary and the government in any state sounds the death knell to democracy. We both are mutual watchdogs, so to say, not mutual admirers, much less constitutional cohorts,” Justice Chelameswar wrote.

nb-the tribune