Political affiliations considered in appointment of judges: Govt

[Spring Onion]

Political affiliations considered in appointment of judges: Govt


NEW DELHI: Besides the judicial calibre, political affiliations are a factor in the appointment for the Supreme Court and High Court judges, the government has said in response to an RTI application.

The reply came in respect to a Right to Information application of Delhi resident Subhash Chandra Agrawal who had sought from the President's Secretariat details on eligibility requirement of judges of the apex court and the High Courts.

Agrawal's application, which also asked a specific query as to if politically active persons having contested polls on a ticket of a recognised political party were considered unbiased and fit for appointment as judges of SC and HCs, was forwarded to the Law Ministry.

"The appointment of a person with political affiliations /leanings are kept in view and given due consideration by the constitution authorities. However, judicial calibre is of prime importance ...," the Ministry said in its reply.

Dissatisfied over being denied a specific reply to his question, Agrawal, thereafter moved the Central Information Commission (CIC).

Disposing of the applicant's plea, Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah in a recent order noted that the Ministry was clear in its reply that a person who had contested the polls was eligible to be a judge of the Supreme Court or High Courts.

The Ministry during its hearing before the CIC stood by its earlier response in which it said that although political affiliations of a person were considered in appointment of judges of the higher judiciary, approving the fitness of a person in that regard was the "prerogative of constitutional authorities associated in the due process."




Political affiliations considered in appointment of judges: Govt-India-The Times of India

 

[Flintlock]

RTI is the most brilliant thing ever!

Now all the skeletons are tumbling out of govt. closet!!

 

[solid snake]

Why should this be a surprise? Everywhere in the world, this is the case. Samuel Alito was appointed by Bush just because he was Bush's puppet.

 

[Spring Onion]

Why should this be a surprise? Everywhere in the world, this is the case. Samuel Alito was appointed by Bush just because he was Bush's puppet.

Yes solid No surprise just to clear that when they talk about appointment in our judicial system they should know they also have the same

 

[Flintlock]

Yes solid No surprise just to clear that when they talk about appointment in our judicial system they should know they also have the same

Yes, but thankfully Indian Supreme Court/High Court track record is a proud one dotted with many landmark judgements against the ruling government.

In Pakistan however, SC judgements are simply the wishes of the current admistration...

 

[Spring Onion]

Yes, but thankfully Indian Supreme Court/High Court track record is a proud one dotted with many landmark judgements against the ruling government.
In Pakistan however, SC judgements are simply the wishes of the current admistration...

lolz u are sleeping dear well it was appointment but as u are trying to turn it into a battle than ok as u wish.
Now coming to ur comment if u follow the new our Supreme Court has given verdict against the most powerful man Musharraf.

Same was the case way back when Nawaz Sharif was gone to SC and verdcit was against the government and it was accepted.

And no judgment is according to wishes of the current administeration

 

[Flintlock]

lolz u are sleeping dear well it was appointment but as u are trying to turn it into a battle than ok as u wish.
Now coming to ur comment if u follow the new our Supreme Court has given verdict against the most powerful man Musharraf.

Same was the case way back when Nawaz Sharif was gone to SC and verdcit was against the government and it was accepted.

And no judgment is according to wishes of the current administeration

You started it

Anyways, I won't push the subject.

I'll just leave it up to everyone to decide for themselves how independent the Pakistani judiciary is

 

[Spring Onion]

You started it

Anyways, I won't push the subject.

I'll just leave it up to everyone to decide for themselves how independent the Pakistani judiciary is

Sure but also let it up to everyone to decide how much corrupt Indian Judiciray is

 

[bhangra12345]

deleted deleted

 

[Energon]

I can't for the life of me understand your train of thought here (which is a general motif in your posts*). In no way are the judiciary systems of the two countries equitable.

For one, the general governance system (with the judiciary arm being only one aspect of it) is completely different. Subsequently the resultant MOs of each branch of government is also completely different.

In India or any other democratic system, justice officials are almost always public officials first and more than likely have allegiance to some political party; this cannot be avoided. However at the end of the day, once they become SC judges, it is their knowledge base and competence with jurisprudence that outweighs everything else. I would much rather they be up-front about their prior political affiliations so that they can be observed more closely in office. This brings us to the second major point. The concept of checks and balances. What you have failed to address here is that no matter who and what the contenders to the position are, the independent media always keeps a close watch on them as well as the process itself.

I don't think anybody is saying that constitutional operations of India (or any other democratic nations for that matter including the wealthy/developed western ones) are perfect, but if you are saying that their sanctity is compromised, then I'm not likely to be sold.

In the case of Pakistan, the checks and balances right now aren't self perpetuating. Up until a few days ago, Gen. Musharraf was the de-facto dictator of Pakistan (as were many of his predecessors) in which case technically they are themselves the judge, jury and executioners. The SC of Pakistan in recent times has done a great job to keep this in check; but it is USA's insistence on Pakistan portraying itself as a democracy for PR purposes that has the Pak SC in the running and nothing else. Gen. Musharraf without this external pressure would have never let the SC CJ back. So although I have a great respect for the Pakistan SC, it is evident that the jurisprudence system has been compromised. Hopefully this will change in the future. But for now, in no shape or form can they be compared with their Indian counterparts.

* this is not a personal attack by any means

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What are the checks and balances on the Indian judges, once appointed?
Lifetime appointments?
How are judges prevented from adjudicating based on party loyalty/beliefs, rather than an interpretation of the constitution? Does it simply come down to individual ethics and morals?

 

[Energon]

What are the checks and balances on the Indian judges, once appointed?
Lifetime appointments?
How are judges prevented from adjudicating based on party loyalty/beliefs, rather than an interpretation of the constitution? Does it simply come down to individual ethics and morals?

Just because a SC justice is bestowed a lifetime appointment doesn't necessarily mean he/she gets to keep it. For instance, it doesn't matter how much Scalia would like to see the USA "return to it's Christian roots" or an Indian SCJ's strong desire for India to become a "Hindu Rashtra", it is impossible for them to make that happen since the parameters set forth before them are that of secularism. If they stray away from those principles it aptly indicates poor competency with their area of expertise for their intended role which when exposed to the people will result in pressure being put on the government to do something about it i.e. force the person in question out.

Now, if the information regarding their policies and tendancies is kept hidden, then we have a serious problem. But at least in the case of India, just the number of people and the avenues to general information is so vast and variable that it is impossible to keep things under wraps. Heck, even prior leaders with autocratic tendancies back in the day when all media of information were state sponsored were unsuccessful at doing such a thing.

The most these people can do is sway towards conservatism or liberalism within the framework of the constitution, but that is about it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Just because a SC justice is bestowed a lifetime appointment doesn't necessarily mean he/she gets to keep it. For instance, it doesn't matter how much Scalia would like to see the USA "return to it's Christian roots" or an Indian SCJ's strong desire for India to become a "Hindu Rashtra", it is impossible for them to make that happen since the parameters set forth before them are that of secularism. If they stray away from those principles it aptly indicates poor competency with their area of expertise for their intended role which when exposed to the people will result in pressure being put on the government to do something about it i.e. force the person in question out.

Now, if the information regarding their policies and tendancies is kept hidden, then we have a serious problem. But at least in the case of India, just the number of people and the avenues to general information is so vast and variable that it is impossible to keep things under wraps. Heck, even prior leaders with autocratic tendancies back in the day when all media of information were state sponsored were unsuccessful at doing such a thing.

The most these people can do is sway towards conservatism or liberalism within the framework of the constitution, but that is about it.

While I can understand the argument behind the obvious failing of a judge in the matter of flagrantly violating the constitution, whether it be a secular one like that of the US, or a more religiously grounded one like that in Pakistan, those are not the sorts of indiscretions I am referring to.

What I was getting at is that there is no "internal affairs" type institution involved - essentially the "arbiter of the arbiters" is the people, and for such a process to really be successful in maintaining the integrity of the court, there are several factors that come into play. You mentioned a few - an independent media, easy access to information, and above all, an actual interest of the people in all of this (and there is in fact a concern associated with "the people" that I'll try and elucidate), because the entire edifice is built upon the people being cognizant of the actions of Public servants and pressurizing their elected representatives to take note and action when indiscretions or abuse do occur.

Now, about "the people". They are a fallible bunch, mired in their prejudices and biases, educated or not - would it not be true that a society that was infested with a particular prejudice, and saw no wrong in it, would in fact also see no wrong in an application of the law that reflected that prejudice? Would the elected representatives, being representative of the public sentiment, also not kowtow to inherent social biases? In a situation such as that, it would essentially be left to individuals within the system who function according to a humanistic set of morals and ethics, rather than a relativistic one.

Plessy, contending that the Louisiana law separating blacks from whites on trains violated the "equal protection clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, decided to fight his arrest in court. By 1896, his case had made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court. By a vote of 8-1, the Supreme Court ruled against Plessy. In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, Justice Henry Billings Brown, writing the majority opinion, stated that:

"The object of the [Fourteenth] amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to endorse social, as distinguished from political, equality. . . If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane."

While I can understand your argument from the perspective of the US judicial system, on the back of a much evolved heterogeneous society, with mature and flourishing institutions of the media and ease in access of information, I don't quite buy the argument of looking at the Indian judicial system in the same light, solely on the basis of a "secular constitution" and continuity of system.

The systems and institutions may be in place, but I am not convinced that society has evolved enough to allow for the sort of "checks and balances" the electorate in the US exercises.