English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Proven guilty by the bar?

Published

on

Ram Jethmalani

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]I am convinced you have lost your mind, writes senior lawyer Ram Jethmalani to CS Karnan, sitting High Court justice

By Sujit Bhar

The Justice CS Karnan case has stirred the legal community like no other. It has not only made the bench jittery, starting from the lower judiciary to the topmost office of the country, but has also generated huge interest among advocates and even the general public. The idea is to wait and watch how the judiciary deals with one of its own; whether the law actually applies to all, equally.

This is a constitutional issue. Incidentally, it must be remembered that there is no overarching mechanism that oversees the actions of the bench at the top level, starting from the High Court and upwards. The mechanism to handle issues at this level is to be handled through an impeachment process that is complicated and time consuming. It was beyond the comprehension of the writers of the constitution that such an issue would grow out of a system that was formatted and put in place with huge powers of oversight over the rest.

While there have been others who have faced impeachment due to corruption, Justice Karnan’s is a unique case which it isn’t about corruption, but about indiscipline and insubordination.

A screenshot of Jethmalani's letter

A screenshot of Jethmalani’s letter

The recent outburst of senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, in an open letter to Justice Karnan (see picture), is a case in point. It is a letter that, under normal circumstances, would have been taken as an affront to the judiciary and would have called for censure from the bench. No reaction is, so far, available from the bench on this letter.

The letter in itself was totally uncalled for, because as Jethmalani himself has admitted, “I have never met you nor even heard about you…” but then he goes on to say: “I am sorry to tell you that I am convinced you have lost your mind. You behaviour is that of a lunatic and some day that may be the only defence available to you though with no bright chance of success.”

One would wonder what the result would be, if any lawyer, of whichever standing, or an ordinary citizen for that matter, had written such a letter to any other high court judge of the country. Would not contempt proceedings be brought against that lawyer?

Jethmalani also says: “…humbly pray for pardon for every stupid action you have so far indulged in.”

This has to be studied in three parts. First, the law-abiding citizen would like to see how the judiciary deals with one of its own, and how it provides even a judge a fair trial. Can a judge—or any citizen for that matter—be declared a law-breaker because he/she refused to appear for a contempt hearing? If so, then the law is being justly and equally embalmed.

Secondly, would not Justice Karnan be deemed innocent till proved guilty? If at this point nothing has been proved against him—certainly no crime—how was it possible for a senior lawyer to cast serious personal aspersions on a member of the bench? This is not to condone the actions of the judge in question (Justice Karnan), but to question the action of a lawyer, who is no more a civilian than any one of us, even if he is attached to the judicial system.

And third, if discipline is a matter imposed only on non-judicial civilians, then would the constitution condone that act? What is the mechanism of redress available to the ordinary citizen in the case of an emotional outburst following a judgement that he or she or his or her family fails to comprehend and/or feels has not been fair? Does the accused have access to redressal, other than approach a higher court, which involves cost? If not, should Jethmalani be so unique a human being that his letter can be overlooked?

The Justice Katju case

This brings to mind the call for contempt of Justice Markandey Katju. Not only was he a former judge of the Supreme Court, he is also the former Chairman, Press Council of India, both extremely authoritative positions. He has been known to be outspoken, a trait that got him in trouble.

In the Soumya rape and murder case—where the culprit Govindachamy assaulted and then raped the 23-year-old in the empty ladies coach of a moving train before allegedly pushing her off the train, killing her—the Supreme Court had refused to give capital punishment to Govindachamy. It upheld his life sentence instead, overturning the Kerala High Court’s death sentence of 2013.

The incident was almost as gruesome as the Delhi Nirbhaya case, though the assailant was just one, but the issue of his pushing Soumya off the train could not be proved. That was the primary reason why the Supreme Court stopped before capital punishment.

The judgement created heartbreak in Kerala and Justice Katju said in a Facebook entry that the apex court had “grievously erred” by not imposing death penalty. Katju said it was “regrettable” that the court has not read Section 300 carefully.

In October 2016, the apex court summoned Justice Katju and issued a contempt notice for criticizing the judge and not the judgement. To this, Justice Katju had said: “Mr (Justice) Gogoi don’t threaten me. Do what you want. I am not scared.”

The incident got serious when Justice Katju kept reminding the Judge (Gogoi) that he (Katju) was senior to him. At one point the bench called for security, saying: “Is there anyone to escort Justice Katju out of court?”

In January this year Justice Katju had to submit an unconditional apology to the court at which contempt proceedings were dropped.

If that was the case of a former Supreme Court Judge, casting personal insults on a sitting high court judge might be considered a serious case, especially when the judge in question is yet to be proven guilty of any crime other than contempt of court.

How does advocate Ram Jethmalani stand?[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Amit Shah counters delimitation concerns, says southern states to gain Lok Sabha seats

Amit Shah assures Parliament that southern states will gain Lok Sabha seats after delimitation, countering opposition criticism during the women’s reservation debate.

Published

on

Amit Shah

Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Thursday addressed concerns over the proposed delimitation exercise, asserting in the Lok Sabha that southern states will not lose representation but instead see an increase in their number of seats.

His remarks came during a heated debate linked to the implementation of women’s reservation, where opposition parties have raised fears that population-based delimitation could reduce the political weight of southern states.

Shah rejected these claims, calling them misleading, and said the proposed framework ensures fairness while expanding the overall strength of the Lok Sabha.

Seat count to rise with expansion of Lok Sabha

The government has indicated that the total number of Lok Sabha seats could increase significantly as part of the delimitation process. In this expanded House, the combined representation of southern states is expected to rise from 129 seats at present to around 195 seats.

Shah emphasised that no state will lose seats in absolute terms, and the exercise is designed to reflect population changes while maintaining balance across regions.

State-wise projections shared in Parliament

During his address, Shah also provided indicative figures for individual southern states, suggesting notable increases in representation. According to the projections:

  • Tamil Nadu could see its seats rise substantially
  • Kerala, Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh are also expected to gain additional seats
  • Karnataka’s representation may increase as well

These figures were presented to counter the argument that delimitation would disproportionately favour northern states.

Political debate intensifies over linkage with women’s quota

The delimitation exercise has been closely linked to the rollout of women’s reservation, which proposes one-third seats for women in Parliament and state assemblies.

Opposition leaders have questioned this linkage, arguing that tying reservation to delimitation could delay its implementation and raise federal concerns. Some leaders have also warned that the move could impact national unity if apprehensions among states are not addressed.

The government, however, maintains that the reforms are necessary to ensure equitable representation and to align the electoral system with demographic realities.

Centre dismisses ‘false narrative’ on southern states

Shah reiterated that concerns about southern states losing influence are unfounded. He said the delimitation process will increase representation across regions and described the criticism as a “false narrative” aimed at creating confusion.

The issue is expected to remain a key flashpoint as Parliament continues discussions on the women’s reservation framework and related legislative changes.

Continue Reading

India News

PM Modi assures no discrimination in women’s quota, delimitation debate intensifies in Parliament

PM Narendra Modi has assured that women’s reservation will be implemented without discrimination, amid a heated debate over delimitation in Parliament.

Published

on

PM modi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has assured that there will be no discrimination in the implementation of women’s reservation, as Parliament witnessed a sharp debate over the proposed linkage between the quota and delimitation exercise.

During the ongoing special session, the government reiterated its commitment to ensuring fair representation while addressing concerns raised by opposition parties regarding the timing and structure of the legislation.

The proposed framework aims to reserve 33 percent of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. However, its implementation is tied to a fresh delimitation exercise, which is expected after the next census.

Opposition questions timing and intent

Opposition leaders have raised concerns that linking the women’s quota to delimitation could delay its implementation. They argue that the process of redrawing constituencies may push the actual rollout further into the future.

The issue has triggered a broader political confrontation, with multiple parties questioning whether the move could alter representation across states.

Some critics have also alleged that the delimitation exercise could disproportionately benefit certain regions based on population, a charge the government has rejected.

Government reiterates commitment to fair implementation

Responding to these concerns, the Centre has maintained that the reforms are necessary to ensure accurate and updated representation based on population data.

Leaders from the ruling side have repeatedly emphasized that the process will be carried out transparently and without bias. The assurance that there will be “no discrimination” is aimed at addressing fears among states and opposition parties.

The debate marks a key moment in Parliament, with both sides engaging in intense exchanges over one of the most significant electoral reforms in recent years.

Continue Reading

India News

Give all tickets to Muslim women, Amit Shah says, attacking Akhilesh Yadav on sub-quota demand

A sharp exchange between Amit Shah and Akhilesh Yadav in Parliament over sub-quota for Muslim women highlights key divisions on women’s reservation implementation.

Published

on

A heated exchange broke out in Parliament during discussions on the women’s reservation framework, with Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav locking horns over the demand for a sub-quota for Muslim women.

The debate unfolded as the government pushed forward key legislative measures to implement 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

Akhilesh Yadav argued that the proposed reservation must ensure representation for women from marginalised communities, including Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Muslim women. He said that without such provisions, large sections could remain excluded from political participation.

He also questioned the timing of the bill, alleging that the Centre was avoiding a caste census. According to him, a census would lead to renewed demands for caste-based reservations, which the government is reluctant to address.

Government rejects religion-based quota

Responding to the demand, Amit Shah made it clear that reservation based on religion is not permitted under the Constitution.

He stated that any proposal to provide quota to Muslims on religious grounds would be unconstitutional, firmly rejecting the idea of a separate sub-quota for Muslim women within the broader reservation framework.

The government has maintained that the existing framework already includes provisions for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) women within the overall reservation structure.

Wider political divide over implementation

The issue of sub-categorisation within the women’s quota has emerged as a major flashpoint, even as most opposition parties broadly support the idea of women’s reservation.

Samajwadi Party leaders reiterated that their support for the bill depends on inclusion of OBC and minority women, while the government continues to defend its constitutional position.

The debate is part of a broader discussion during the special Parliament session, where multiple bills linked to delimitation and implementation of the women’s quota are being taken up.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com