The Supreme Court on November 12, 2010 gave the nod for the removal of suspended Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) Chairman and its suspended members for their failure to “maintain the required standards of integrity and rectitude in performance of their constitutional duties”. A three-member Bench headed by Chief Justice SH Kapadia ruled that “There exist justifiable grounds” for their removal and “resultantly, the reference, made by the President of India to this court, is answered in the affirmative”. The other members of the Bench were Justices KS Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar.
The Constitution mandates that as nearly as may be one-half of the members of every Public Service Commission (PSC) shall be persons who at the dates of their respective appointments have held office for at least ten years either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State. Further, the power vests with the President or the Governor as the case may be to determine the number of members of the Commission and their condition of service. However, the State Public Service Commissions, of the late, have become dumping grounds for pliable retired bureaucrats and the henchmen of the Chief Minister who can piously do his bidding.
The Selection of the Chairman and the Members of the PSC should be made by the President/Governor on the recommendation of a Committee comprising the Prime Minister/Chief Minister, Chief Justice of India/Chief Justice of the High Court of the State and the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha/Vidhan Sabha from a panel of outstanding retired civil servants and others with impeccable integrity as the case may be. The Article 319 enumerating certain prohibitions as to the holding of offices by the Ex-Chairman or Ex-Members of the Commission should be amended to bar such Chairman or Members to engage in active politics or to occupy a political post even in an honorary capacity after demitting the office.
Monday, November 29, 2010
High time to keep the Speaker out of the loop in adjudicating over the question of disqualification on the score of defection
The anti-defection law has now become the handmaid of the vagaries of the Speaker of the House be it State or Union Legislature who in turn dances to the tune called by his political boss in ruling regime as seen, of the late, in Haryana and Karnataka. Hence, time brooks no delay in amending the Constitution suitably to keep the Speaker out of the loop in adjudicating the question of defection in a given case. The President and the Governor should be vested with the power to decide on disqualification of MPs and MLAs respectively on the score of defection on the binding advice of the Election Commission of India (ECI) a proposal mooted by the ECI and endorsed by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission.
Further, not all is bad with the anti-defection law. The whipping boy the para 4 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution enabling the merger of a political party, in fact, is highly democratic. It envisages a collaborative and participatory working between the political party concerned and its legislature party consisting of all members of the given House for the time being belonging to that political party in the State Legislature or Parliament whatever may be the case. The law tends to strike a fine balance between interests of political party and the aspirations of the Legislators (denoting the will of the people) comprising the legislature party concerned. The contents and intent of the said law lend emphatic credence to the inference that any decision for such merger can only be taken by the original political party in accordance with the rules thereto as embodied in the constitution of that political party, and to take it further to any logical conclusion must find favour with not less than two-thirds of the elected members of the legislature party concerned. Hence, the contention as being articulated from certain quarters that unilateral decision of the two-third members of the legislature party bypassing the political party ipso facto seals the fate of the latter is untenable. Since there is no direct authoritative ruling of the Apex Court on the para 4 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and the vacuum is being rampantly misused/abused by the unscrupulous political parties and politicians, hence, it will be in the fitness of the things to invoke Article 143 of the Constitution to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court through a Presidential reference on the vexed question.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
When should the justice retire?
Lawyers update, November, 2010, Letters to the Editor
“The Cover Story, “WHEN SHOULD THE JUSTICE RETIRE?” by HemRaj Singh in the September 2010 issue was timely. Amongst others, the retirement age of the Judges of higher judiciary has profound bearing on the independence of higher judiciary in India. The retired judges of the higher judiciary are offered government employment of some kind or other viz. chairmanship, membership of tribunals, statutory commissions, committees and so forth. The lure of such prospective offices and associated perks and pelf have ample potential to subject some of the serving judges to extraneous considerations in the discharge of their duties and it may undermine the independence of higher judiciary. The apprehension becomes more marked in view of the constitutional prohibition restraining the retired Supreme Court Judges and the retired High Court Judges to practice law before any court or authority in India and in the High Court(s) where they held office as a permanent judge respectively.
As pointed out in the story, in USA, a Judge of the Supreme Court holds office during good behaviour, which means that he can continue to occupy office for life. The secured judicial tenure leading virtually up to the last breath of the judge free of the post-retirement anxieties greatly subserves the independence of judiciary in the USA.
In India, the present position of difference in age of retirement has colossal potential to inveigle some of the High Court judges to curry favour with the Supreme Court’s collegium (entrusted with the function to make appointments and transfers in higher judiciary) to secure an extended tenure of three more years in the Supreme Court.
The Constitution Amendment Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha in the last monsoon session to raise the retirement age of High Court Judges from 62 to 65 is salutary but not adequate. In this matter, either the Indian Constitution should appropriately be amended on the line of the American Constitution or any how, the age of retirement of both the High Court and Supreme Court Judges be fixed at 70 years in line with the present normal life expectancy in India.
However, needless to emphasize that Judicial accountability, transparency and independence are interwoven. The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill cleared by the Union Cabinet recently needs to be made into law forthwith. Moreover, the proposed Scrutiny Committee and Judicial Oversight Committee in the said Bill should also be involved along with the existing machinery of the present Collegium system in making judicial appointments and transfers in the higher judiciary. It will help tremendously in mitigating the scourge of “Judges appointing the Judges”.”
Rajender Goyal
Advocate, Bahadurgarh
(Haryana)
“The Cover Story, “WHEN SHOULD THE JUSTICE RETIRE?” by HemRaj Singh in the September 2010 issue was timely. Amongst others, the retirement age of the Judges of higher judiciary has profound bearing on the independence of higher judiciary in India. The retired judges of the higher judiciary are offered government employment of some kind or other viz. chairmanship, membership of tribunals, statutory commissions, committees and so forth. The lure of such prospective offices and associated perks and pelf have ample potential to subject some of the serving judges to extraneous considerations in the discharge of their duties and it may undermine the independence of higher judiciary. The apprehension becomes more marked in view of the constitutional prohibition restraining the retired Supreme Court Judges and the retired High Court Judges to practice law before any court or authority in India and in the High Court(s) where they held office as a permanent judge respectively.
As pointed out in the story, in USA, a Judge of the Supreme Court holds office during good behaviour, which means that he can continue to occupy office for life. The secured judicial tenure leading virtually up to the last breath of the judge free of the post-retirement anxieties greatly subserves the independence of judiciary in the USA.
In India, the present position of difference in age of retirement has colossal potential to inveigle some of the High Court judges to curry favour with the Supreme Court’s collegium (entrusted with the function to make appointments and transfers in higher judiciary) to secure an extended tenure of three more years in the Supreme Court.
The Constitution Amendment Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha in the last monsoon session to raise the retirement age of High Court Judges from 62 to 65 is salutary but not adequate. In this matter, either the Indian Constitution should appropriately be amended on the line of the American Constitution or any how, the age of retirement of both the High Court and Supreme Court Judges be fixed at 70 years in line with the present normal life expectancy in India.
However, needless to emphasize that Judicial accountability, transparency and independence are interwoven. The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill cleared by the Union Cabinet recently needs to be made into law forthwith. Moreover, the proposed Scrutiny Committee and Judicial Oversight Committee in the said Bill should also be involved along with the existing machinery of the present Collegium system in making judicial appointments and transfers in the higher judiciary. It will help tremendously in mitigating the scourge of “Judges appointing the Judges”.”
Rajender Goyal
Advocate, Bahadurgarh
(Haryana)
Thursday, November 11, 2010
The Protection of Women Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010
THE TRIBUNE, NEW DELHI, 11.11.2010, P. 10
Sexual harassment
Thirteen years after the Supreme Court delivered the Vishakha judgment detailing guidelines for the protection of women at workplaces, the Union Cabinet’s nod to the Protection of Women Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010 for introduction in the Parliament’s forthcoming winter session is heartening (editorial “Protecting career women: Bill to prevent sexual harassment at offices”, Nov 8).
The apex court had relied upon the Convention for Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which India had signed. As stated in the editorial, the Bill is broad-based in its nature and scope as it includes women working in all enterprises — public, private, organised and unorganised. It will apply even to establishments with less than 10 employees, but their complaints will be directed to a local complaints committee at the district level.
Moreover, any woman who enters the workplace as a client, customer, apprentice, daily wage earner or in an ad hoc capacity, students and research scholars in colleges and universities, patients in hospitals will have the right to complain against sexual harassment. However, it is rightly urged upon to bring the domestic help into the ambit of the present legislation in view of the increasing cases of exploitation and molestation of the domestic help in recent times.
RAJENDER GOYAL, Advocate, Bahadurgarh
Sexual harassment
Thirteen years after the Supreme Court delivered the Vishakha judgment detailing guidelines for the protection of women at workplaces, the Union Cabinet’s nod to the Protection of Women Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010 for introduction in the Parliament’s forthcoming winter session is heartening (editorial “Protecting career women: Bill to prevent sexual harassment at offices”, Nov 8).
The apex court had relied upon the Convention for Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which India had signed. As stated in the editorial, the Bill is broad-based in its nature and scope as it includes women working in all enterprises — public, private, organised and unorganised. It will apply even to establishments with less than 10 employees, but their complaints will be directed to a local complaints committee at the district level.
Moreover, any woman who enters the workplace as a client, customer, apprentice, daily wage earner or in an ad hoc capacity, students and research scholars in colleges and universities, patients in hospitals will have the right to complain against sexual harassment. However, it is rightly urged upon to bring the domestic help into the ambit of the present legislation in view of the increasing cases of exploitation and molestation of the domestic help in recent times.
RAJENDER GOYAL, Advocate, Bahadurgarh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
