Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Sunday, December 22, 2024

What CJI Is Saying Is Hundred Percent Right On PM Home Visit

Posted in: Judiciary
Thu, Nov 7, 24, 16:39, 2 Months ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 15512
PM Mr Narendra Modi at the residence of incumbent CJI Dr Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud on the occasion of Ganpati Puja

It is most atrocious to note that a courtesy call by the incumbent PM Mr Narendra Modi at the residence of incumbent CJI Dr Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud on the occasion of Ganpati Puja in September 2024 had got embroiled in so much of unnecessary hype, hoopla and hullabaloo that was totally unwarranted and uncalled for! CJI Dr DY Chandrachud very rightly defended PM Modi’s visit saying rightly, robustly and rationally that there is a need for a sense of maturity in political sphere on such issues. There was a massive uproar following the visit of PM which dominated headlines in news channels, magazines and nearly in all print and social media which even baffled me!

We need to note here that while speaking at an ‘Indian Express’ newspaper event on November 4, 2024, the CJI Dr Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud waxed eloquent and minced just no words to say most unambiguously that:
The PM visited my residence for Ganpati Puja. There is absolutely nothing wrong as these are continuing meetings between the judiciary and the executive even at social level. We meet at Rashtrapati Bhavan, Republic Day, etc. What CJI is saying has a valid point. There can be just no denying or disputing it!

While shedding further light on the type of conversation that are made, the CJI Dr Chandrachud further said that:
We are in conversation with the Prime Minister and the Ministers. This conversation does not involve the cases which we decide but life and society in general. It also must definitely be taken note that the CJI also very rightly specified saying that one had to respect that a dialogue took place as part of a robust inter-institutional mechanism and separation of powers between judiciary and the executive did not mean the two not meeting.

In hindsight, it may be recalled here that the video that was posted on X had depicted the CJI Dr DY Chandrachud and his wife Kalpana Das welcoming PM Mr Narendra Modi into their home just like any person would do if a guest came to their house. But the video that suddenly gained traction online with many people giving different reactions, it garnered all types of responses and many users had just no inhibition to express their serious concerns that the Prime Minister’s presence at the CJI’s residence can have deeper and far range implications when it comes to the moot question of impartiality in the judiciary. It must also be recalled here that the CJI Dr Chandrachud in October 2024 had himself sought to address the ongoing controversy that surrounded the PM Mr Narendra Modi’s visit to his home and was absolutely right in pointing out that there is maturity in Judges to not discuss any judicial matters during such visits.

While speaking at the Loksatta lecture series in Mumbai, we need to note further that the CJI Dr DY Chandrachud also further underscored saying emphatically that:
There is enough maturity among judges of constitutional courts and the heads of the executive to firmly keep aside judicial matters out of the purview of any discussion. It is the detractors who keep raising baseless questions on such visits who definitely must pay heed to what the CJI has pointed out in simple, short and straightforward language! No denying or disputing it!

While adding more to it, the CJI Dr DY Chandrachud further minced just no words to state in no uncertain terms most unequivocally that:
People think there are deals being made, but that is not the case. This is part of the robust dialogue between different arms of the government. The work of all three arms is dedicated to the betterment of the nation. Absolutely right!

It is definitely as clear as broad day sunlight that which State needs more High Court Benches and which State does not need even a single High Court Bench! But the most unpalatable truth is that neither any Chief Justice of India nor any Prime Minister of India till date has ever bothered to take any initiative in this regard in last nearly 80 years of independence to do anything substantial to correct the most biggest Himalayan blunder committed in 1948 by creating only one High Court Bench for the most populated State of India with maximum number of pending cases that is Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow so near to Allahabad and nowhere else and worst of all attached litigants of 30 districts of West UP with not even Lucknow which falls 230 km earlier but right uptill Allahabad to seek justice which in itself is the biggest betrayal of Constitution in India and justice as litigants of West UP have to travel whole night and half day averaging 700 to 800 km. Most unfortunate indeed!

But why neither the media nor the Opposition very forcefully raises it is truly incomprehensible! We must be open about it. We can’t change the system unless we talk openly about it. There is no point in pushing this under the carpet. It is nothing but plain stupidity and sheer absurdity of the highest order that West UP owing for majority of the cases of UP has not even a single Bench and Eastern UP alone has both High Court and a single Bench so near to each other!

One is totally clueless on the rationale behind denying West UP even a single Bench inspite of owing for majority of pending cases of UP! Abolish all the high court benches in India if West UP cannot be given bench because West UP which owes for majority of pending cases not just in Uttar Pradesh but even in any other region of India and in any other State also and Centre till date is dead determined never to allow even a single Bench in any nook and corner of Uttar Pradesh other than the one so near to Allahabad at Lucknow in Eastern UP and worst of all attached 30 districts of West UP with not even Lucknow but with Allahabad which is 230 km away from even Lucknow due to which litigants of West UP have to travel 700 to 800 km on average all the way whole night and half day till Allahabad to seek justice which in itself is the biggest betrayal and biggest murder of Constitution and justice as it throttles the basic right of litigants of West UP to get justice at doorsteps! But no one in power in Centre really cares about it! This is the real rub!

By all accounts, UP must be treated as primus inter pares which means first among equals! But the most unfortunate part is that UP, lawless Bihar and Rajasthan are placed in the last row by depriving them from having multiple High Court Benches most chillingly with West UP and Bihar having none and PM and CJI watching like a helpless, hapless and hopeless spectator! I am astounded, ashamed, appalled and aghast at how much temerity Centre has demonstrated in bulldozing the most legitimate demand for a High Court Bench in West UP, Purvanchal, Bundelkhand and lawless Bihar!

It is very rightly pointed out by eminent and senior lawyer and so also former General Secretary of Meerut Bar – Mr Tarun Dhaka in his enlightening legal article titled How Can It Happen That UP Has Least High Court Benches In India And West UP Has None published most prominently in June 2015 issue of the prestigious All India Reporter (AIR) Law Journal explaining in detail which is a Must Read Article that how most openly Uttar Pradesh has been so wrongly discriminated in allotment of High Court Benches and worst of all how West UP has been deprived from having even a single High Court Bench even though it owes for majority of the pending cases of Uttar Pradesh as acknowledged by Justice Jaswant Singh Commission appointed nearly 50 years ago by Centre itself headed by former Supreme Court Judge due to which it recommended a permanent main Bench for West UP!

It is absolutely mind blowing to see how the most populated State of India with maximum number of pending cases has been so chillingly, cunningly and callously discriminated against without any remorse when it comes to High Court Benches where there is just one at Lucknow so close to Allahabad where it was just not needed at all created way back in 1948 and in West UP, Purvanchal and Bundelkhand none just like in lawless Bihar where there is none! There has been a complete non-application of mind when it comes to the creation of High Court Benches in different regions and different States!

Coincidentally we see that incumbent PM Mr Narendra Modi is MP from Varanasi in UP and incumbent CJI Hon’ble Dr Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud whose home State is Maharashtra which has maximum number of High Court Benches was Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court for nearly 3 years as he himself most proudly concedes. It was in his tenure as Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court in 2014-15 that lawyers of 22 districts of West UP under one banner went on strike for 6 months demanding High Court Bench just like it was done in 2001 and still nothing was done to resolve the deadlock! As CJI Hon’ble Dr DY Chandrachud is on verge of completing two years in CJI post on November 10, 2024 when he will retire finally, he must do something on it which is the biggest and blackest stain on his otherwise unblemished track record which even his worst critics admire though hesitatingly!

Why is it ignored that even legal giants like Ram Jethmalani, Soli J Sorabjee, Kapil Sibal etc have time and again reiterated the dire need for setting up a high court bench in West UP? Why is it ignored that Soli J Sorabjee as Attorney General had said in 2001 that:
Centre can create a High Court Bench in West UP without any recommendation from the State Government or the Chief Justice. Why is it ignored that even former Supreme Court Bar Association President BN Krishnamani had said that:
Only by the creation of a high court bench in West UP will the people living there get real and effective justice. It should not be denied to them rather should be given at the earliest. Why is it conveniently ignored that incumbent President of Supreme Court Bar Association Kapil Sibal had recommended for High Court Bench in West UP at Meerut when he was Union Law Minister in UPA regime? Why is it ignored that former UP CM Sampoornanand recommended a High Court Bench for West UP in 1955 at Meerut but Centre overruled him! The incumbent UP CM Mr Yogi Adityananth himself more than 25 years ago demanded High Court Bench in Parliament for Gorakhpur and in 2015 even presented a Private Member Bill in Parliament for the same with tears in eyes!

The former UP CM Ms Mayawati recommended partition of UP into few parts in 1995 with West UP to be created as a separate State to be named Harit Pradesh and she still affirms by it! But on ground we see not even a single High Court Bench approved even though incumbent CM Mr Yogi Adityanath recommended for a High Court Bench in West UP to Allahabad High Court in January 2024 only to be withdrawn the very next day for some undisclosed reasons! These are all bone chilling facts and they cannot be just swept beneath the carpet!

Let me put it this way: Why is Centre mutilating Article 14 of Constitution by denying West UP even a single Bench and equipping Eastern UP alone with both High Court and a Bench? Why Maharashtra tops in latest Justice Index Ranking States list and still has maximum Benches and UP even though figuring in bottom and owing for maximum cases still one Bench only? Why West UP owing for more than half of the total pending cases has no Bench? This is nothing but sheer subversion of Constitution itself and what it stands for!

What is worst is that even after 78 years we hardly notice any big change in Bench distribution and the 230th Report of Law Commission of India which recommended creation of more High Court Benches in States is still gathering dust after more than 14 years! Why even Apex Court not once in last 78 years has dared to take suo motu cognizance of it under Article 142 of Constitution is truly incomprehensible? Why not one Bench created in last 78 years in Uttar Pradesh which owes for maximum pending cases among all States and West UP owes for more than half of them yet no Bench?

The billion dollar question is: Why lawless Bihar has no High Court Bench? What is the point in denying West UP even a single Bench when it owes for more than half of the total pending cases of UP and High Court at Allahabad is so far about 700 km on average for which Justice Jaswant Singh Commission also recommended strongly a permanent Bench and a single Bench also in Eastern UP at Lucknow? This is most atrocious!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Rahendra Baglari v. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M) writ petitioner for adjoining a Judicial Magistrate and the High Court and its Registry as Respondents to his plea against the order passed by the said Magistrate.
Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal vs.Uttarakhand long standing or established status quo brought about by judgments interpreting local or state laws, should not be lightly departed from.
Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur apart from High Court at Mumbai but on the contrary UP which has maximum pending cases in India
It is most shocking to see that a peaceful, one of the most developed and most prosperous state like Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur
I am neither a member nor supporter of BJP or any other political party nor a member of any of BJP's affiliated organizations like the RSS or VHP or any other organization.
Kirti vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited advocates cannot throw away legal rights or enter into arrangements contrary to law. It was also made clear that any concession in law made in this regard by either counsel would not bind the parties.
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on December 28, 2020 had expressed shock and deep concern on the arbitrary, illegal and brazen exercise of brute power by the police against lawyers, including the search conducted at the premises of an advocate representing some of the accused in the North-East Delhi riots cases.
media trial during criminal investigation interferes with administration of justice and hence amounts to contempt of court as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Jamal v. Maharashtra dismissed a plea filed by the National President of BJP Minority Morcha – Jamal Anwar Siddiqui seeking 'X' category security.
Duroply Industries Limited and anr. Vs Ma Mansa Enterprises Private Limited in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction has recalled its own order of an injunction passed in a trademark dispute as the Judge presiding over the case had appeared for one party in respect of the same trademark in the past.
At the outset, it must be stated rather disconcertingly that it is India's misfortune that UP which has the maximum population more than 23 crore as Yogi Adityanath
At the outset, it has to be stated without mincing any words that it merits no reiteration that Judges age for retirement must be now increased to 75
Rajeev Bhardwaj v. H.P while dismissing a plea seeking a declaration of a sitting Judge's dissenting view as Coram non-judice and non est in the eyes of law.
Adv KG Suresh vs UOI has declared as unconstitutional the bar on lawyers representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals constituted under the Maintenance Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Maintenance Act).
Bar Council of India ensured that there is an entrance exam now for all those lawyers who want to practice which has to be cleared before lawyers can start practicing.
It is a matter of grave concern that while our Constitution enshrines the right to equality as postulated in Article 14 but in practice what we witness is just the reverse.
seeking interim bail/parole for the under-privileged and under-trial prisoners/convicts keeping in view the terrible havoc unleashed by the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.
When an intellectual giant like Fali Sam Nariman whom I personally rate as the world's top jurist and it is not just me but his extremely impeccable credentials are acknowledged in legal field, it is not just India but the whole world which listens to him in silence
Treasa Josfine vs Kerala that a woman who is fully qualified cannot be denied of her right to be considered for employment on the ground that she is a woman and because the nature of the employment would require her to work during night hours.
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs constituted a Committee to suggest reforms in our criminal justice system which has been facing repeated criticism for its various drawbacks
Congress government's rule in Centre, Kapil Sibal who was Union Law Minister had written very categorically to UP Government for creating a high court bench for West UP at Meerut
completely about the truthfulness of the retracted confession and should corroborate his/her confession as it is unsafe to convict an accused person solely on the basis of the retracted confession
Thabir Sagar vs Odisha the practice of Advocate's clerks filing affidavits on behalf of parties is unacceptable. Such a practice is in gross violation of Rule 26 of the Orissa High Court Rules. It has therefore rightly directed its Registry to ensure that steps are taken forthwith to stop the practice of accepting such affidavits
COVID situation in UP, the Allahabad High Court has issued revised fresh guidelines for the functioning of all the Courts and Tribunals subordinate to it.
amended its rules to make criticism and attack of Bar Council decisions by members a misconduct and ground for disqualification or suspension or removal of membership of a member from the Bar Council.
CJI NV Ramana who was appointed as the 48th CJI on 6th April, 2021 and took oath as CJI on 24th April 2021 has very rightly expressed his concern on the social media noise and how it adversely impacts the institutions also like judiciary to a great extent which actually should not be the case.
At the crucial meeting of the Central Action Committee. of more than 20 districts of Bar Association of West UP held at Aligarh
Why UP which is among the largest States, has maximum population more than 24 crore which is more than even Pakistan
When finances are needed for the purpose of improving the judicial system at the lower levels, there is reluctance to make such finances available.
rarely ever booked and made to face the consequences which only serves to further encourage men in uniform to take it for granted to indulge in worst custodial torture
Tarun Saxena vs Union of India as ultra vires Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which bars lawyers from representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals
Dhanbad district of Jharkhand was mowed down by an autorickshaw has sent shivers down the spine. The ghastly incident happened on morning of July 28 near the Magistrate colony of Dhanbad that was close to the Judge's residence.
Suman Chadha & Anr. vs. Central Bank of India in that the wilful breach of the undertaking given to the Court can amount to Contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2020 which shall be applicable to the proceeding of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and all the Subordinate Courts of the Rajasthan with immediate effect.
Arun Singh Chauhan v/s MP deprecate the conduct of a practicing advocate who chose not to answer the repeated queries of the Court pertaining to the maintainability of his petition seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto and regarding the non-impleadment of a necessary party
Dr.Mukut Nath Verma vs UoI Allahabad High Court imposed Rs 5 lakh costs on an advocate Dr Mukut Nath Verma after concluding that he unauthorisedly filed a writ petition on behalf of suspended and absconding IPS officer Mani Lal Patidar and also levelled serious allegations against state authorities and thereby misleading the Court.
Anil JS vs Kerala that instances of allegations about the police disrespecting the citizens were arriving at its doors with alarming regularity and therefore issued certain general directions in its judgment.
If there is one Judge on whom I have blind faith for his exemplary conduct throughout his brilliant career and who can never favour wrongly even his own son
Indianisation of our legal system is the need of the hour and it is crucial to make the justice delivery system more accessible and effective.
the gang war of different gangs have now reached right up to the court premises itself which are supposed to be the holiest shrines for getting justice.
It is not just for enjoying life or going for some holiday trip that lawyers of West UP repeatedly keep going on strike since last many decades.
CM Yogi Adityanath UP has progressed by leaps and bounds which one certainly cannot deny but why is it that it has just one High Court Bench only and that too just approximately 200 km away at the city famously called Nawab City
Just changing name of Allahabad to Prayagraj won't change the ground reality. It is a proven fact that High Court is still called Allahabad High Court and not Prayagraj High Court.
It is most shocking that all the Chief Justices of India from 1947 till 2000 were never shocked nor were any world famous jurist like Nani Ardeshir Palkhiwala, Ram Jethmalani, Shanti Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan among many others
Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra vs UP has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to instruct the District Magistrates of all the districts to re-evaluate the cases for remission after 14 years of incarceration even if appeals in such cases are pending in the High Court.
Union Minister of State for Law and Justice – SP Singh Baghel who is also an MP from Agra again in Western UP and who just recently took over has made it clear that his ministry was open to the setting up of a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Western UP.
Anil Kumar and Anr. Vs Amit that the practice of advocates acting as power of attorney holders of their clients and also as advocates in the matter, is contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Shashank Singh vs/ Honourable High Court of Judicature at Allahabad that under Article 233 of the Constitution of India, a Judicial Officer regardless of his or her previous experience, as an Advocate, cannot apply and compete for appointment to any vacancy in the post of District Judge.
It must be stated at the very outset that it is quite bewildering and baffling to see that the state of UP which Ban ki moon who is the former UN Secretary General had slammed as the rape and crime capital of India
most powerfully raised vocally the legitimate demand for a High Court Bench in West UP which is the crying need of the hour also.
Top