However these incidents were
reported by Manoj Mitta here before Justice Bhattacharya’s revelations. To
quote Mitta, “The first instance was in January 2009 when C T Ravi Kumar, a
close relative of the-then CJI, K G Balakrishnan, was appointed as a judge of
the Kerala High Court. This was followed by the appointment in September 2010
of Justice Shukla Kabir Sinha, sister of Justice Altamas Kabir, as a judge of
the Calcutta High Court.” Mitta adds that shortly after these two elevations,
the then CJ’s of these two High Courts; namely Justice H L Dattu from Kerala
High Court and Justice S S Nijjar from Calcutta High Court were elevated the
Supreme Court. Both the supersession of Justice Bhattacharya and elevation of
close relatives of two Supreme Court justices escaped the attention of the
persons concerned and these incidents were never investigated.
I recently came across a letter
(dated 5th May, 2013) allegedly written by Dr. M Furquan. The
contents of the letter deserve serious and immediate attention but this is
being only circulated among lawyers and judges secretly. There is not much
information available about Dr. Furquan or means to contact him. A Supreme
Court judgment mentions Dr. Furquan as the editor of a fortnightly Urdu newspaper
by name ‘Sach Bilkul Sach’.
What matters is not the
credibility of Dr. Furquan but the seriousness of the allegations raised by Dr.
Furquan and some of these allegations have already turned out to be true. Earlier
this year, when I first received the copy of this letter, I wanted to write
about it while I was working at Live Law; but a threat of contempt held me back
from publishing this. Later, pilot edition of Crime Magazine (English), run by
Kerala based journalist, T P Nandakumar carried a more detailed story on this
but it was hardly noticed. Nandakumar is often seen as a pulp journalist by the
mainstream media; but the truth remains that most of his exposes were picked up
later by the mainstream media itself. I would like to thank Nandakumar for providing
me a copy of some documents needed to run this story.
The letter alleges that Justice
Altamas Kabir is the most corrupt Chief Justice India has ever seen. It says
Justice Kabir has delivered judgments and passed orders in favour of various
people, after charging crores as bribe. Particularly the letter says, though it
was Justice G S Singhvi, who was hearing the 2G scam case; on a special mention
before the CJI Court, Justice Kabir allowed non appearance of certain persons
before the Special Court trying the 2G case. Similarly in the Sahara Case,
though Justice K S Radhakrishnan was hearing the case, on a special mention
before the CJI Court, Justice Kabir allowed more time to Sahara for payment of
money to SEBI. Later another petition was moved by Sahara before the CJI Court
and Senior Advocate M N Krishnamani objected to the CJI court hearing this. In
an unprecedented intervention, the Bar Chief said, “In keeping with the
traditions of the court, I request you not to modify an order passed by another
bench." You can read more on this here.
These facts need to be read along
with the observations made by the present CJI, P Sathasivam in the Jai PrakashAssociates Limited’s case. A bench headed by Justice Sathasivam refused to
extend order passed by the predecessor bench (comprising Justice Altamas Kabir),
which granted interim protection to Jai Prakash Associates Limited from paying
25 Crores. The Bench said, “We do not approve of the manner in which the
interim orders came to be passed. We do not sit on appeal over orders passed by
a coordinate bench. These orders should not have been passed”. This statement
by Justice Sathasivam seems to be a testimony for allegations raised by Dr.
The most important allegation is
with regard to the NEET judgment. A Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice
Altamas Kabir in this case held that Medical Council of India’s (MCI) and
Dental Council of India’s (DCI) notification for holding common entrance test
called National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) for MBBS, BDS andpost-graduate medical courses is ultra vires the Constitution. Justice Anil R
Dave delivered a dissenting opinion. Dr. Furquan’s letter dated 5th
March, 2013 indicated that the judgment will be in favour of the medical
colleges which challenged the introduction of NEET. The judgment has come out
on 18th July, 2013 and Dr. Furquan’s prediction has turned true. Interestingly, Prashant Bhushan in an
interview alleged that the NEET judgment was given to private medical colleges
well before it was given to Justice Anil R Dave.
There are many other allegations
against Justice Altamas Kabir, present CJI P Sathasivam and also ex CJI, K G
Balakrishnan. The letter is self explanatory and is available for download
below. Towards the end of the letter, Dr. Furquan requests the President to
investigate (by the CBI) into the allegations. Dr. Furquan says, “As stated
earlier CJI Mr. Altamas Kabir is the most corrupt Chief Justice that India has
ever seen. In view of the forgoing, your Excellency is requested to kindly get
a thorough investigation done by the CBI on the Chief Justice of India, CJI Mr.
Altamas Kabir and also about his entire family members for finding out as to
how much financial assets they have accumulated since he took over as the Chief
Justice of India, as the details of the immovable property/assets declared by
him and his wife on 1.4.2012 (copy of which is enclosed) in Supreme Court Website
is far below than the actual assets he and his family now own and also about
all other above stated issues to the Director, CBI for thorough enquiry.”
A copy of this letter was marked
to several eminent personalities including; Justice G S Singhvi, Prime
Minister, Opposition Leader, CBI Director, Justice V R Krishna Iyer, Arvind
Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan. However no action seems to be taken to
investigate into the matters mentioned in this letter.
Justice V R Krishna Iyer has
written a separate letter (dated 25th May, 2013) to the President of
India, requesting to investigate into the matters mentioned by Dr. Furquan in
his letter. The letter says, “I have received a letter from Dr. M. Furquan
which I am enclosing herewith which casts a spell of moral lapses on the
judiciary itself. You, as the President of India are the guardian of its
noblest values. May I entreat you on behalf of ‘We, the People of India’ the
moral core of the Constitution and the humanity and divinity of Bharat’s cultural
heritage. To take action as the sublime head of the Indian Republic against
judges who are suspect of moral deviance”. An email sent to Justice Iyer’s
office asking if he has been informed of any action taken on his letter, did
not receive any response. Justice Iyer’s letter is also available for download
In order to restore the credibility of the institution, it is
essential to investigate Dr. Furquan’s letter, lest it spells the doom of Indian judiciary!
We are extracting below the important
observations made in the Report of the First GNLU Review Commission for
Stripped Law readers. The full report is available for download below.
Commission met and interacted with students. The students enthusiastically
welcomed the initiative and agreed to consult their friends in their respective
classes and gather suggestions for submission to the Commission. Some of them
submitted a voluminous memorandum of facts and opinions on which the Commission
did interact with them as well as with the members of the teaching staff.
No.8 (dealing with Search Committee) has Clause (4) which states, the Executive
Council may also recommend the name of a person other than those recommended by
the Search Committee, if it has reason to believe that such other person is
having regard to the interests of the university suitable to the post of the
(4), in effect, nullifies the recommendations of the Search Committee and tends
to defeat the very purpose of a search by an expert group. Further it provides for
the appointment of a person whose name may not have been found fit by the
Search Committee, or even rejected by the Search Committee. This provision – Clause (4) – in fact, makes
a mockery of the provision for a Search Committee.
is of the view that the Government needs to review the provision in the best
interests of the institution. It is submitted that this clause (4) be omitted
and to ensure transparency in the appointment of the Director, such appointment
should be made only from amongst the panel of three persons recommended by the
Search Committee. In case the appointing authority finds difficulty to accept
any of the three names, let it ask for a fresh panel from the search committee.
This is what is being done in appointment of heads of institutions to ensure
credibility, transparency and respect for the office.
the Registrar is the head of the administrative and ministerial staff of the
university and the principal officer responsible on all matters pertaining to
the administration of the university, it is desirable to appoint a regular
whole time Registrar and put an end to the present practice of appointing an
officiating Registrar by the Director from amongst the teaching staff of the
university is functioning through its various committees, each having a
definite mandate and each contributing to the management of the affairs of the
As there are no
Professors, these committees are headed by Associate/Asst. Professors,
necessarily lacking the requisite experience in the matters concerned. Lack of
guidance by senior teachers in these committees adversely affects the
functioning of the university. Many of
these committees deal with important academic matters where junior staff
members lacking experience of taking decisions manage the affairs just to keep
things functioning. This is a sad situation which needs correction.
of experienced Professors to lead and guide various academic and administrative
activities is highly desirable in the interests of the overall development of
is submitted that an effective grievances redressal mechanism need to be set
up, or the existing arrangement revamped, so as to inspire confidence amongst
the students and the teachers, that their concerns will be effectively
addressed by the administration.
steps may be initiated to set up a Students Bar Association or a Representative
Council and a Faculty Consultative Council so as to provide constructive outlet
to ventilate the aspirations of the students and teachers.
idea of giving liberal scholarships and fee exemptions to deserving students
admitted on merit is a good policy and deserves to be continued and
expanded. The principle of equity and
inclusiveness which is a national norm in higher education has to be endorsed
reservations in student admission, there is need for the university to identify
early those who need additional help to be able to cope up with the high
demands of study at GNLU. Special
coaching, mentorship and individual guidance by senior teachers in the first or
second semesters would certainly help the weak students to cope up with the
high demands of legal studies. Repeat
examinations have to be discouraged as it tends to stigmatize and take away
attention from their studies.
world class university should be able to dispense with attendance requirement
in course of time by motivating everyone voluntarily to participate in
learning. Learning is seriously impaired
in an atmosphere of mistrust between the teachers and students. GNLU needs to take these issues seriously and
work out strategies in consultation with students to ensure voluntary obedience
to the rules and regulations of the University.
applicants for teaching positions are just looking for an employment. They have no experience in the theory or
practice of teaching as that is not part of the LL.M. curriculum or NET
programme. Some of them have false
notions of teaching from the way they themselves have been taught with the
result they don’t even care to learn better teaching techniques. Given this situation, the university has no
option but to prepare their own teachers through an year long well-organized Teaching
appears from responses received from teachers that there is not adequate
communication between the Director and members of the Faculty. They seem to be aggrieved of academic
decisions being taken unilaterally without consultation, seminars being
organized without an institutional purpose, non-academic activities being
imposed without consultation and grievances are not promptly and properly
addressed to create a conducive environment for collectively taking the
university forward. Without taking sides
on the issue, the Commission would suggest the authorities to follow a policy
of consultative decision making on academic matters through weekly or fortnightly
Faculty meetings and recording and circulating the minutes for action by all
concerned including the Director.
teachers are grudging that they are being compelled to stay on the campus for
eight hours a day which they consider to be violative of UGC rules!! There is need for change of this attitude and
teachers should voluntarily stay in the accommodation provided by the
university. The Director should himself
stay in the campus. If sufficient
accommodation is not available yet in the campus for all its teachers, the
authorities must consider buying or hiring a group of flats in the nearby
apartment clusters and making them available to teachers free of rent.
of training programmes is being organized from time to time depending upon
requests from other agencies. The
Resource Persons are invited from outside GNLU.
How does it help GNLU in its mandate when it is not able to enrich its
intellectual or material resources. It
is recommended that GNLU may consider establishing an Institute for Continuing
Legal Education (ICLE) in view of the felt need and demand for CLE among the
legal profession and law teaching community.
14.To be able to develop a work culture of devotion
to scholarship, endeavour to do things better and commitment to academic
values, the senior faculty has responsibilities to perform. This work culture
is not the product of laws and regulations or rewards and punishments alone.
They develop through taking everybody into confidence in ‘decision making’,
adopting best practices from elsewhere, developing powers and functions to
functionaries at all levels and projecting a common vision carefully crafted.
This is not to say that these are absent in GNLU, but only to emphasise their
importance when one aspires to become world class in a highly competitive environment.
15.GNLU reportedly functions through Committees.
Are the committees democratically constituted? Are they given clear mandate,
independent authority, and accountability? What is the relationship between the
Committee and the Director? How the Committees’ functioning is co-ordinated,
audited and assessed? The management culture reflects on academic quality and
efficiency of every educational institution.
There are complaints the faculty raised in the constitution and functioning
of the Committee system at GNLU. The Commission would only appeal to the
authorities including the Director to have a close look at the system and see
where corrections are needed to make their functioning smooth, productive and
16.Public relations is part of legitimate image
building of an institution. But when it is overdone it boomerangs particularly
when the internal structures and processes are weak, and if there is even a
modicum of discontent among the staff or students. Promising more than one can
offer through prospectus, advertisements and leaflets should be eschewed. The
policy should be to let the programmes speak for itself. This is not to say
that GNLU is guilty of it but to empazise a point. After all, for an
institution which is still in its infancy, one cannot expect miracles to happen
in an environment where academic institutions or even long standing are finding
difficult to innovate, experiment and change styles of teaching/learning.
17.During the Commission’s interaction with
students it was revealed that there are communication gaps between the students
and the administration and there are apprehension of victimisation if they take
up their grievances. Even a section of Faculty complained of actions “demeaning
the honour of faculty”, too many seminars and training programmes unrelated to
faculty/student interests and “conducted for name sake”, appointment of
unqualified and inexperienced wardens in hostels etc.
the system of grievance redressal is not functioning effectively and there is
some amount of suppressed feelings both among faculty and students unrecognised
by the administration. The Commission has not probed the problem further to be
able to pass any judgment on the issue; but we want to flag the issue that
there is some amount of simmering discontent which need to be addressed by the
administration in the best interest of the institution.
18.The University spends over Rupees Twelve crores
every year to run the institution. The Government has spent nearly 150 crores
of rupees to develop the infra-structure. In return for such investments, the
University is now able to give education for a total of about 1200 law students
each year. The per capita expenditure is fairly high compared to the
expenditure on legal education elsewhere in the State. 76% of the expenditure
is recovered as student fees. This can be justified only in terms of high
quality education offered comparable to the best in the circumstances. In other
words, GNLU may sooner or later will be confronted with the issue of quality of
instruction in relation to the quantity of fees collected. Public may ask
whether the society is getting due return for the investment of tax payers’
money particularly when graduates tend to migrate to the private corporate
sector. GNLU now tries to offset such criticism by way of offering a variety of
services to corporates, Governments, sister institutions and civil society. All
these need to be constantly reviewed to justify the liberal investment
Government has made on the institution.
There has been the birth of a new martyr on the horizon
among the Muslims of Hyderabad, by the name of Akrabuddin Owaisi, as the now
deleted blog IndianMuslimPost
puts it. For the rest of the India, he might be a trouble maker who thrives on
inciting the communal passions of a religious minority of the country. But for
that particular religious minority in the bylanes of Hyderabad, he is nothing
short of a hero, a man who will go miles to ensure the ‘long denied justice’
for them. It can only be ironic that, Hyderabad MLA’s father, Salahuddin Owaisi
was a veteran investigator of communal riots, who had the respect of one and
all in the State administration and had been buried with full State honours.
So, what has Akrabuddin Owaisi been accused of? Why is such
a hullabaloo being created? Why is the print, electronic and social media
chastising him so violently? Why are the right wing activists unanimously
protesting against him? The answer is what we, in layman terms, call hate
speech. On 24th December 2012, Owaisi addressed
a rally of 25000 people, mostly Muslims, at Adilabad in Andhra Pradesh and
made multiple comments against Hindus, Hindu deities, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
(RSS) and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). There was also a glimpse of pro-Pakistan
and anti-Indian attitude in his speech.
But is hate speech something new in
India? Let’s have a look. After independence, it has been there since as early
as in 1969, when then Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray had incited trouble
through his speeches in the majorly violent Maharashtra-Karnataka border
disputes. After that, Sena has got into repeated trouble with the police and
the authorities for hate speeches and violence against Muslims and non-Marathis.
Most recently, Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj Thackeray, with all his vocal
attempts at rousing the “Marathi Manoos” feeling to create trouble for North
Indians in Mumbai has time and again faced the media and public ire. And then,
we have seen Anti-Muslim speeches by VHP leader Ram Vilas Vedanti and BJP MP
Varun Gandhi. Certainly, in the medley of cultures, religions and traditions
that India is, hate speech is something that has been thriving here, due to a
multiplicity of factors, be it political, social and economic.
In light of the scenario, another question arises. If hate
speech has been there in the country since decades and has faced censure, why
the insistence on special
focus on Owaisi? Is it because he is a Muslim and he was addressing a crowd
of Muslims and we, as a country where the majority of the population is Hindu,
can’t stand this at any cost? Do we claim to be secular just for the sake of
it? Don’t we have an iota of tolerance towards other religions?
The answer to all these questions lies in the negative. Many
people have drawn parallels between the infamous Bal Thackeray hate speeches
and Owaisi’s speech. However, there are numerous fundamental differences
between the two. Agreed, both deal with denigration of another community, both
sound out the bugle for arms cloaked in religious terminology, both project
themselves as saviour of a particular community. But that’s where the
similarity ends. Thackeray used to refer to Muslims
in a derogatory fashion in his speeches, but not even once ever did he speak a
word about Prophet Mohammed. Owaisi, on the other hand, in his speech,
proceeded to abuse Hindu
deities, customs and traditions. Secondly, Thackeray’s target was the
always the ruling Congress Government at the Centre or the Maharashtra Cabinet.
Owaisi, on the other hand, refers to “Hindustan”, not once, but repeatedly. He
warns “Hindustan” not to trifle with “us”. One cannot help but wonder, isn’t
Owaisi and the community that he claims to represent, a part of “Hindustan: as
well? Doesn’t this amount to spreading feelings of separateness from the
country in a specific community? If Thackeray was charged
with promoting enmity between communities and booked under Section 153(A),
shouldn’t Owaisi be charged with spreading feelings of hatred against the
country among his community? There is one more difference. Thackeray used to
look at issues either through the prism of a communal or regional identity.
Owaisi couples the communal angle with a view through a windowsill that is
different and distinct from the rest of India. His constant reference to
“Hindustan” as a “land of Hindus” vis-à-vis, “us”, the Muslim community, stands
proof to this. This outlook permeates Majlis-e-Ittehadul-Muslimeen (MIM),
Owaisi’s political party.
However, the Owaisi issue aside, hate speech, as a
mechanism, has been used in India systematically in recent times, during and
after elections, to whip up communal hatred and even actual violence. It is
high time that we look at how repeated misuse of freedom of speech translates
into hate speech, polarising communities and in many cases, degenerating into
Relevant sections of Indian
Penal Code and Representation
of People’s Act have appropriate measures to deal with hate speeches but
they have been rarely used. There are a few sections in Indian criminal law and
election law that unequivocally restricts and restrains the use of hate speech
and empowers the Government, the police and the judiciary to enforce them. Sections 153 A and B of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC-offences for promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of
religion, race, place of birth, language etc and doing acts prejudicial to
maintenance of harmony or prejudicial to national integration) and Sections 123
A and B of the Representation of People’s Act (RPA—that, under the definition
of a ‘corrupt practice’ forbids the use of undue influence, appeal on grounds
of religion, promoting enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens
on the ground of religion, race or community and character assassination). These provisions co-exist with other,
broader provisions of the Indian Penal Code, with significant implications for ‘hate
speech’. These provisions include the following:
Section 295, which prohibits ‘injuring or defiling [any] place of
worship with intent to insult the religion of any class’;
Section 295A, which
prohibits ‘deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious
feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs’;
Section 298, which prohibits ‘uttering words, etc, with deliberate
intent to wound religious feelings’;
Section 505(1), which prohibits ‘statements conducive to public mischief’;
Section 505(2), which
prohibits ‘statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between
The approach of the Indian judiciary towards issues of ‘hate speech’ (as they
intersect with questions of ‘public order’) has been exemplified, and in many senses
established, by the landmark case of Ramji Lal Modi v State of Uttar Pradesh (1957).
In this case, where the person concerned had tried to incite a large Hindu
crowd against Muslims in Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court of India upheld the
constitutionality of section 295A of the Indian Penal Code as a ‘reasonable’
restriction upon free speech ‘in the interests of’ public order. The Court
rejected the need for any nexus between acts possessing ‘a tendency to cause
public disorder’ and the actual occurrence of such public disorder. Indian
judiciary, in most cases, has adopted a broad construction of the ‘interests of
public order’, while relating to hate speech. It has time and again relied on
Human Rights Resolution 13/16, Combating Defamation of Religions, which
appropriately addresses the need for a balance between freedom of speech and
religious freedom. However most of the actions of the judiciary relating to
hate speech are responses to immediate political and religious controversies,
not substantial contributions to international human rights jurisprudence.’
Quite apart from the fundamental rights to equality, equal protection
by the law, right to life, freedom of expression, association and residence and
freedom to promote, practice and propagate one’s faith and the rights of
religious minorities to run their own institutions, the consistent and honest
application of these sections of the IPC and the RPA are critical to ensure and
assert the protection of basic democratic and human rights and especially, the
Constitutional rights of Indian religious minorities. As importantly, the regular application
of these sections in the public arena, by actions of the executive and
judiciary, whenever violations of these laws take place is as much necessary
for upholding the secular intent of the Constitution of India.
While Justice Cyriac Joseph was
about to retire as Supreme Court judge, a good friend of mine in the Supreme
Court brought to my notice an interesting fact – that Justice Joseph was leaving without delivering any judgment.
My friend rued that he might be the first judge to leave the Supreme Court without
delivering a judgment or very less number of judgments. I decided to dig into
this and did a comprehensive study of how many judgments Justice Joseph had delivered.
I also made a comparative analysis of his fellow judges lest the study be
criticised as a window to give vent to personal vendetta. This was story behind
the genesis of the ‘Judges Scorecard’ column (now Verdictum) in Bar & Bench. If not for the Contempt
law, the title of the column would have remained ‘Judges Scorecard’.
I analysed the tenure of as many
as forty two judges and the data corresponding to their performance. Justice Joseph
had penned down only six judgments in 1300 days during his tenure of roughly
four years. Among these six, one judgment was delivered in 2010, two judgments
in 2011 and three in 2013 few days prior to his retirement. I had also obtained data on the number of days
served and the number of judgments delivered by the other Judges (both retired and still
serving) in the last three and half years to obtain some comparative data.
I quote from the report published
in Bar &
Bench, “Comparing Justice Joseph`s performance with his fellow judges,
there seems to be a huge difference in number of judgments delivered. During
Justice Joseph`s tenure, judges including Justice S. H. Kapadia, Justice
Altamas Kabir, Justice Dalveer Bhandari, Justice D. K. Jain, Justice P.
Sathasivam etc. have penned down more than sixty judgments each. Furthermore,
there is a marked difference, when compared to judges like Justice Arijit
Pasayat and Justice S.B. Sinha, who have penned down as many as 426 and 336
judgments respectively. Although the number of judgments written by a judge
cannot be seen as an exhaustive benchmark for their performance, it does
provide certain indications.”
Few months later, I came across
the news that Justice Joseph was being appointed as the Chairman of Telecom
Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), New Delhi. I found this to be a
hilarious joke as Justice Joseph was coming as a replacement for Justice S. B.
Sinha. Justice Sinha during his judgeship was known for being a workaholic while
Justice Joseph was infamous for being a habitual laggard. A Bar & Bench reader raised an
important question in the story relating to Justice Joseph’s appointment, which
I quote below:
“Who will write the judgments
now?” The other
comments in the story itself are indicative of Justice Joseph’s work style.
In early March, Economic
Times reported that the Centre had asked the Chief Justice to take into
account a report from an "agency" before taking a final decision on
Justice Joseph’s appointment to the TDSAT. The report had not raised any issues
relating to integrity; but it had observations on the former judge's
"style of functioning". In particular, the report had commented on
alleged delays in delivering verdicts. It
is also interesting to note that due the ambiguity prevailing over Cyriac
Joseph’s Chairmanship, TDSAT
had been rendered defunct with the retirement of its only serving member,
P.K. Rastogi. How the tribunal will fare with Cyriac Joseph at its helm is
anybody’s guess. A few days back, Indian
Express reported that, “Since the UPA government's move to appoint
former Supreme Court Judge Cyriac Joseph as chairman of the Telecom Disputes
Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has come a cropper apparently because of
an adverse report by an intelligence agency, the government is now learnt to be
planning to make him a member of the National Human Rights Commission”.
How a Judge found unfit for the post of TDSAT chairman owing to his working style is fit for another post at National Human
Rights Commission (NHRC) is inexplicable. Justice Joseph’s record clearly
indicates that he has done no substantial work at the Supreme Court of India.
The figures indicated in the Judges Scorecard report and the fact that he heard
Mulayam Singh’s disproportionate assets case for three years and left without
delivering a judgment testifies that. Appointment of Justice Joseph to any
judicial or quasi judicial post is nothing short of outrageous, especially
during times when the propriety of post retirement posts and benefits for
Supreme Court judges are being fiercely debated. At a time when our justice
dispensation system is breaking under the burden of backlogs, Justice Joseph has
set the wrong example by his lacklustre show at the Apex Court.
He, therefore, does not deserve
to be appointed to another post and be allowed to enjoy all the luxuries that accompany
it and thereby waste the taxpayers’ money. If the government does not want the
Tribunals and the Commissions to be rendered defunct, appointment of Justice Joseph
should be reconsidered.
Unless specified to the contrary, the contents of this blog and these pages are protected by copyright and no part of them may be reproduced in any form or used in any other way except with the Blog Administrator's prior written permission or in accordance with the next term set out below. You may print off or download the visible text on the site for personal non-commercial purposes but it may not be used for any other purpose.