&w=3840&q=100)
CJI Gavai vows full transparency in collegium, no compromise on merit
The CJI, who was sworn in as the 52nd Chief Justice of India last month, was speaking at the Bombay High Court in an event organised by the Bombay Bar Association to honour his elevation to the highest judicial position in the country. CJI Gavai said since his predecessor Justice Sanjeev Khanna was the CJI, the collegium has tried to infuse more transparency in matters of appointments. He added that SC Justice Dipankar Datta previously at an event in Nagpur last week spoke about interference in the working of the collegium. "I assure everyone, we will adopt a procedure of complete transparency. Merit will never be compromised. We will have representatives from all sections of society. Names of all recommended will be followed up," the CJI said. He further said that when his name was recommended in 2019 for elevation to the Supreme Court, one judge in the collegium was not in favour of the same. "Last six years, I kept this as a secret when my name was doing rounds for SC, one of the collegium judges had some reservations," Gavai said, refusing to name the judge. This judge felt that if I am elevated, then there may be unrest among some senior lawyers in Mumbai, CJI Gavai said. "However, several senior lawyers from the Bombay Bar Association met this judge in Delhi and told him that he was under a wrong impression," he added. "I will always be indebted to the Bombay Bar Association as my elevation to the Supreme Court at that point of time and thereafter as CJI would never have been possible," CJI Gavai said. He emphasised that the duty of a judge is to always do justice and uphold the Constitution and that he has always attempted to do so. CJI Gavai said when he was appointed as the CJI, he refused to give any interviews to the media or speak about any roadmap. "Rather than speaking now, I felt I should let my work speak for me six months later when I retire. I do not want to make empty promises and leave room for any disappointments," he said. The CJI added that he also wants to dispel the misconception that the Supreme Court is a CJI-centric court. "SC is a court of all judges. CJI is only the first among equals," he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC issues notice on plea seeking enforcement of 27% OBC law in MP
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a fresh petition seeking enforcement of a Madhya Pradesh law providing 27% reservation to the other backward classes (OBC) in state employment but refused to pass any interim directions noticing that the matter is already pending in the top court. SC issues notice on plea seeking enforcement of 27% OBC law in MP A bench of justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan, sitting during the partial court working days, passed the order seeking response of the Madhya Pradesh government on a petition filed by 18 people belonging to the OBC community, led by petitioner Nishchay Sonbirse. The petition argued by advocate Varun Thakur pointed out that in 2019, the MP government brought amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994, increasing reservation benefits in jobs for OBCs from the existing 14% to 27%. Thakur said that prior to enactment of the Act, the same law was introduced by way of an Ordinance that was challenged before the MP high court by a final-year MBBS student. On her plea, an interim order was passed on March 19, 2019 directing that the counselling for NEET-PG examination of 2019 will be conducted as per the old law providing for 14% OBC reservation. He stated that despite the Ordinance becoming law, the interim order has been continued by the executive arm of the state without there being any stay or interim order passed by either the high court or the top court. The bench said, 'We are not going to grant you any interim order. Very reluctantly we are issuing notice. We will only post the matter along with the batch of matters pending before this court.' In 2022, the state of Madhya Pradesh had filed a transfer petition before the top court. Subsequently by an order of the court, all petitions pending before the high court stood transferred to the top court where the matter is still pending. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appearing for the state opposed the petition pointing out that already the issue is under consideration in the transfer petition filed by the state. He questioned the need for adding yet another petition to the bunch of cases where the validity of the law has been challenged. Thakur pointed out that the pending batch of cases only challenge the Ordinance. However, the Act has not been challenged so far. However, lawyers appearing in the matter refuted this claim pointing out that even the 2019 Act by the state introducing 27% reservation for OBC in public employment is pending before the top court. Thakur said that the implementation of the 2019 amendment remains uncertain and sought a clarification from the court giving effect to the law. The petition filed by him said, 'The legislation has neither been struck down nor declared unconstitutional by any court of law. In fact, no interim order has been passed by this court or the high court of Madhya Pradesh for restraining enforcement of the law.' He stated that the operation of the statutory provision cannot be stultified by granting an interim order except when the court is fully convinced that the particular enactment is unconstitutional. He questioned the executive for not acting upon the legislation in the absence of any order restraining them from doing so.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SC to decide validity of Madras HC stay on Tamil Nadu law on University VC appointments
NEW DELHI: The on Friday entertained Tamil Nadu's petition questioning reasonableness of Madras HC's order staying its legislation, which gave the state government, instead of the governor, the power to appoint University vice-chancellors, but refused M K Stalin government's plea for suspending the HC order to re-operationalize the law. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now TN fielded a team of senior advocates – A M Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi and P Wilson – to argue that the HC had without considering the urgency to appoint vice-chancellors to universities, recommendations to which effect has been put in cold-storage by the Governor, stayed the legislation. The law giving state govt the power to appoint VCs to universities was stayed along with nine other laws, Bills for which were reserved for the President's consideration by the governor but were regarded as deemed to have been approved by President in a controversial unprecedented ruling by a two-judge SC bench on Apr 8. Three days after the 'deemed to have been approved' ruling by the SC, which now is subject to a Constitution bench's opinion on a Presidential Reference questioning the use of Article 142 power of the SC to virtually obliterate roles assigned by the Constitution to President and Governors on Bills passed by Assemblies, the TN govt had notified the nine bills as laws. The bench refused to stay the HC order but asked the UGC and the public interest litigation petitioner before the HC to respond to TN's petition in four weeks. For UGC, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the law is palpably contrary to the UGC Regulations which empower only governors to appoint VCs to the universities. When the senior advocates pleaded that they would argue before the HC for vacation of the stay, Mehta said that in that case the TN must withdraw its petition seeking transfer of the PIL from Madras HC to the SC. 'The state cannot have both options open at the same time and be permitted to argue before the HC that the SC is considering transfer of the PIL to itself,' he said. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Wilson sought expunging of certain 'harsh remarks' against him by the HC merely because he was pointing out the SC's 2-J bench order. Justices Narasimha and Mahadevan said this request would be considered by the SC during the final hearing on the TN's petition. One of the Acts, notified on Apr 11 by the state related to vesting in the state govt the powers of the Governor, as Chancellor, to appoint vice-chancellors of universities in the state. A vacation bench of the HC on May 21 granted stay on this amending provision, holding that UGC Regulations, 2018, would prevail over the state legislation by virtue of doctrine of repugnancy. The state said it had raised the objection to the delay in filing of the PIL but the division bench of the HC 'did not even call for an explanation from the Registry of the HC or the Petitioner but proceeded to hear the case in a tearing hurry.' The HC 'showed undue haste', did not even give a week's time to the state to file its counter affidavit, and passed the stay order 'for extraneous reasons', it said, adding that the impugned order is replete with personal attacks on the senior counsel who appeared for the state.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
'Congress fighting to save Constitution'
Deputy Chief Minister Bhatti Vikramarka declared that India is facing an ideological battle. He stated that the Congress and INDIA bloc are fighting to safeguard the Constitution, while the BJP and NDA alliance seek to amend it for their political advantage. HYDERABAD: Deputy chief minister Bhatti Vikramarka on Friday said the nation is in the midst of an ideological battle, with the Congress and INDIA bloc fighting to protect the Constitution, while the BJP and NDA alliance aim to amend it to suit their political agenda. "Without the Constitution, India's poor, Dalits, tribals, and backward communities would be voiceless. . We must protect it at all costs," he asserted.
