THE TRIBUNE, NEW DELHI, PULL-OUT OF HARYANA PLUS, OCTOBER 26, 2010, P. 2
Mockery of an examination
An eerie sense of distrust, skepticism, unpredictability and dilly-dallying is generally seen to shroud the selection processes undertaken by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC). For appointments in HCS (Judicial Branch), the HPSC conducted preliminary examination on 11.07.2010. The result that was declared on 14.07.2010 wadded into troubled waters. Some unsuccessful candidates hauled up the HPSC and the selection committee of the Punjab and High Court over some grave errors in the question paper and answer key.
Justice Ajay Lamba then directed the Selection Committee and the HPSC to constitute an empowered committee to redraft the answer key and recheck the papers of all candidates. However, without doing so, the HPSC notified the schedule for main examinations (October 1 to October 3). While the aggrieved candidates grumbled at the indiscretion of the HPSC, the successful candidates were also on tenterhooks over the legal sanctity of the examination. Later, the answer key was rectified and the revised merit list was published on 27.09.2010. Consequently, it occasioned the induction of 45 more candidates. However, there was no deferment of the main examination which took place as per notified schedule. Will the authorities explain as to how it is feasible to brace up for an examination for the post of the Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrates in a short notice of four days? The disappointment further deepens because of the fact that High Court is also involved in the selection process.
Rajender Goyal
Bahadurgarh
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
FOOD CRISIS amidst GRAIN DRAIN
THE HINDUSTAN TIMES, NEW DELHI, October 25, 2010
Starved of compassion
With reference to Grain rot deeper than govt claim: SC (October 19), allowing millions of tonnes of foodgrain, procured at heavy cost to the State exchequer to rot, while millions starve in the country is nothing but inhuman. The prime minister owes a public apology to the nation on the emotive issue of the food crisis and grain drain.
RAJENDER GOYAL, DELHI
Starved of compassion
With reference to Grain rot deeper than govt claim: SC (October 19), allowing millions of tonnes of foodgrain, procured at heavy cost to the State exchequer to rot, while millions starve in the country is nothing but inhuman. The prime minister owes a public apology to the nation on the emotive issue of the food crisis and grain drain.
RAJENDER GOYAL, DELHI
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
The policy of the appointment of Chief Justice of a High Court from outside is salutary
THE TRIBUNE, NEW DELHI, October 20, 2010, P. 10
Debate on CJs’ appointment
I read The Tribune debate on the policy of appointment of High Court Chief Justice from outside the state (Sept 9, 13, 14 and Oct 6). The present policy is based on the decision to have one-third of the judges of a High Court from outside the state following serious deliberations in the Constituent Assembly, the States Reorganisation Commission, the Law Commission, the Administrative Reforms Commission, etc. The Supreme Court, in its various rulings, has also ratified it.
The common grouse against the present policy is that the Chief Justice from outside the state is not familiar with the local Bar, the practices and rules of the new High Court and the subordinate judiciary and that his tenure generally is too short to enable him find his feet in the new High Court. The Supreme Court in SC Advocates-On-Record Association v Union of India (1994) ruled: “It may be desirable to transfer in advance the seniormost Judge due for appointment as Chief Justice to the High Court where he is likely to be appointed Chief Justice, to enable him to take over as Chief Justice as soon as the vacancy arises and, in the meantime, acquaint himself with the new High Court”.
The recent transfer of Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Acting Chief Justice of the Guwahati High Court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court is in line with the said decision of the Supreme Court and needs to be replicated invariably in every case. Moreover, while denouncing the present policy of transfer, we must not lose sight of the rampant scourge of “uncle judges” that is badly sullying the judiciary’s fair image.
RAJENDER GOYAL,
M.D. University, Rohtak
Debate on CJs’ appointment
I read The Tribune debate on the policy of appointment of High Court Chief Justice from outside the state (Sept 9, 13, 14 and Oct 6). The present policy is based on the decision to have one-third of the judges of a High Court from outside the state following serious deliberations in the Constituent Assembly, the States Reorganisation Commission, the Law Commission, the Administrative Reforms Commission, etc. The Supreme Court, in its various rulings, has also ratified it.
The common grouse against the present policy is that the Chief Justice from outside the state is not familiar with the local Bar, the practices and rules of the new High Court and the subordinate judiciary and that his tenure generally is too short to enable him find his feet in the new High Court. The Supreme Court in SC Advocates-On-Record Association v Union of India (1994) ruled: “It may be desirable to transfer in advance the seniormost Judge due for appointment as Chief Justice to the High Court where he is likely to be appointed Chief Justice, to enable him to take over as Chief Justice as soon as the vacancy arises and, in the meantime, acquaint himself with the new High Court”.
The recent transfer of Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Acting Chief Justice of the Guwahati High Court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court is in line with the said decision of the Supreme Court and needs to be replicated invariably in every case. Moreover, while denouncing the present policy of transfer, we must not lose sight of the rampant scourge of “uncle judges” that is badly sullying the judiciary’s fair image.
RAJENDER GOYAL,
M.D. University, Rohtak
Judiciel Standards and Accountability Bill
The Union Cabinet’s nod for the introduction of the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill in the coming winter session of the Parliament is laudable. The majesty and sanctity of the judiciary rest on the respect and confidence it enjoys among the people. The Bill provides for provisions for declaration of assets and liabilities of judges of higher judiciary, and a mechanism to tame the judicial indiscipline and corruption even at the instance of an ordinary private person. To weed out frivolous complaints, a scrutiny committee is envisaged to examine the authenticity of the complaint. Only thereafter, a broad based judicial oversight committee will look into the complaint, and take/recommend suitable action against errant judge. Hence, the Bill is a fine blend of judicial accountability, transparency and independence.
However, in the Bill, the Higher Judiciary including the office of the CJI should specifically be made amenable to the command of the RTI. Moreover, the proposed Scrutiny Committee and Judicial Oversight Committee should also be involved along with the present Supreme Court Collegium (that practically makes appointments and transfers of the judges in higher judiciary) in effecting judicial appointments and transfer in the higher judiciary.
However, in the Bill, the Higher Judiciary including the office of the CJI should specifically be made amenable to the command of the RTI. Moreover, the proposed Scrutiny Committee and Judicial Oversight Committee should also be involved along with the present Supreme Court Collegium (that practically makes appointments and transfers of the judges in higher judiciary) in effecting judicial appointments and transfer in the higher judiciary.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
My wife's olive branch on Ayodhya verdict
THE TRIBUNE, NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 12, 2010, P. 10
Ayodhya: Need to move beyond ruling
The Ayodhya verdict is getting mixed reactions. One set of views declares it a triumph of Indian ethos of secularism, pluralism, tolerance, and unity in diversity and peaceful co-existence. Others brand it as a political verdict contrary to facts and law, affirmation of Hindu majoritarianism, judicial perpetuation of a gross illegality, an attempt to supplant the much cherished ‘rule of law’ with the ‘divine rule’ and so on.
Be that as it may, the core issue involved in the Ayodhya matter is essentially political. It will be foolhardy to seek a legal solution of a political and religious problem. In 1994, the apex court had returned the Presidential Reference unanswered on the question: “whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure)” on the count that the reference was superfluous, unnecessary, opposed to secularism and favoured one religious community.
The momentous verdict of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has given an opportunity to leave the past behind and press on with new resolve and vigour. We should shun internecine belligerent positions and should reach out to each other to hammer out a mutually acceptable solution more or less in line with the Ayodhya verdict.
NEETI GOYAL, Bahadurgarh
Ayodhya: Need to move beyond ruling
The Ayodhya verdict is getting mixed reactions. One set of views declares it a triumph of Indian ethos of secularism, pluralism, tolerance, and unity in diversity and peaceful co-existence. Others brand it as a political verdict contrary to facts and law, affirmation of Hindu majoritarianism, judicial perpetuation of a gross illegality, an attempt to supplant the much cherished ‘rule of law’ with the ‘divine rule’ and so on.
Be that as it may, the core issue involved in the Ayodhya matter is essentially political. It will be foolhardy to seek a legal solution of a political and religious problem. In 1994, the apex court had returned the Presidential Reference unanswered on the question: “whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure)” on the count that the reference was superfluous, unnecessary, opposed to secularism and favoured one religious community.
The momentous verdict of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has given an opportunity to leave the past behind and press on with new resolve and vigour. We should shun internecine belligerent positions and should reach out to each other to hammer out a mutually acceptable solution more or less in line with the Ayodhya verdict.
NEETI GOYAL, Bahadurgarh
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
The hullabaloo over AFSPA is deafening
Gen (retd) VP Malik’s Article “Revisiting AFSA:Don’t blame it for Kashmir problems”, The Tribune, New Delhi, Sept 20, was enlightening and gave an apt snapshots of the various provisions of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFPSA) vis-à-vis its need in view of the extant disturbed, subversive conditions in many parts of the Country, and its practical utility and efficacy. The real thorn in the flesh of the problem lies in the socio-politico-economic grievances of the people and the political authorities concerned only can address it. To pass the buck on the Armed Forces for the present vitiated state of affairs is highly reprehensible and self-defeating.
The AFSPA arms the security forces with sweeping powers that are absolutely necessary to pulverize the diabolic designs of the subversive element in the disturbed areas. Amongst others, the whipping boy is the Para 6 of the AFSPA. It confers some protection to the members of the security forces deployed in the disturbed areas against frivolous prosecutions etc. inasmuch that prior sanction of the Central Government is mandatory before any prosecution, suit or legal proceeding is instituted against them for any alleged acts of commission or omission done under the AFSPA . The detractors of the AFSPA must know that even an ordinary public servant, while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, enjoys largely similar protections under the general law of the land. Even in the absence of the AFSPA , the members of the armed forces will enjoy somewhat identical protection as envisaged in said Para 6, under section 197 (2) of the code of criminal procedure.
The need of hour is to chalk out cogent and comprehensive roadmap to redress the grievances of the aggrieved people in the disturbed areas. However, the security forces require potent legal cover, optimal logistics support and adequate operational freedom to crush the menace of terrorism and insurgency.
The AFSPA arms the security forces with sweeping powers that are absolutely necessary to pulverize the diabolic designs of the subversive element in the disturbed areas. Amongst others, the whipping boy is the Para 6 of the AFSPA. It confers some protection to the members of the security forces deployed in the disturbed areas against frivolous prosecutions etc. inasmuch that prior sanction of the Central Government is mandatory before any prosecution, suit or legal proceeding is instituted against them for any alleged acts of commission or omission done under the AFSPA . The detractors of the AFSPA must know that even an ordinary public servant, while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, enjoys largely similar protections under the general law of the land. Even in the absence of the AFSPA , the members of the armed forces will enjoy somewhat identical protection as envisaged in said Para 6, under section 197 (2) of the code of criminal procedure.
The need of hour is to chalk out cogent and comprehensive roadmap to redress the grievances of the aggrieved people in the disturbed areas. However, the security forces require potent legal cover, optimal logistics support and adequate operational freedom to crush the menace of terrorism and insurgency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
