SC divided on examining government appointments

New Delhi, Jan 4 (IANS) Adding to the raging debate on judicial activism, a Supreme Court bench Friday appeared divided on examining a plea challenging the executive's powers to appoint officials.

The difference of opinion emerged in a bench of Justices H.K. Sema and Markandey Katju during hearing of a petition that apprehended that former Gujarat Director General of Police (DGP) P.C. Pandey could be reappointed as the police chief of the state.

While Justice Katju fiercely opposed the plea challenging Pandey's likely appointment as Gujarat police chief, Justice Sema asked the petitioner, social activist Teesta Setalvad, to file an additional affidavit in support of her contentions.

During last month's Gujarat assembly elections, Pandey was shifted as the DGP on the orders of the Election Commission following complaints about his alleged lack of political neutrality and bias in favour of the Narendra Modi government.

Pandey was made director of the state's Anti-Corruption Bureau. The petition by Citizens for Peace and Justice, headed by Setalvad, apprehended that Pandey could be reappointed as the state police chief.

Earlier, Setalvad moved the apex court alleging Pandey's role in shielding perpetrators of the 2002 statewide communal carnage.

As the petition came up for hearing Friday, state government counsel Hemantika Wahi told the court Pandey had already been shifted out from the DGP's post.

At this, Setalvad's counsel Aparna Bhat contended that following the assembly polls a new government has been sworn in and there was strong possibility of Pandey being brought back as the DGP.

She wanted the court to extract an undertaking from the Gujarat government that it would not reappoint Pandey.

To this, a visibly infuriated Justice Katju retorted: "What has the judiciary to do with the appointment of the state's DGP? Is the judiciary meant for regulating the appointments by the government? Do you challenge the appointment of the prime minister?"

"It's the exclusive jurisdiction of a chief minister to appoint anybody to a post. You want the judiciary to take over the function of the government?" Justice Katju asked.

"In the appointment of the chief secretary or home secretary or even a district magistrate, it's the state government which has to decide," he said.

Rattled by the judge's observations, Bhat said there were many complaints pending against Pandey. At this Justice Katju shot back: "One may not be a desirable person, but that does not mean the judiciary will interfere in appointments by the government."

Justice Katju pointed out that Pandey was no longer the police chief and so the plea for his removal has already become meaningless and liable to be dismissed.

Faced with the court's inclination to dismiss the petition, Bhat wanted to be given the "liberty" to approach it again in case Pandey is reappointed.

"What liberty? What type of Citizens for Peace and Justice (the name of the petitioner's organisation) are you?" Justice Katju asked, adding, "Had you sought our permission before fling this petition?"

But despite Justice Katju's observations, which indicated his aversion to take up the petition for elaborate hearing, Justice Sema, the senior judge on the bench, decided against dismissing it and adjourned the matter for two weeks for further hearing. He asked the petitioner to file an additional affidavit in support of her contentions.

On Dec 6 last year, as part of another bench headed by Justice A.K. Mathur, Justice Katju had delivered a significant ruling on judicial activism and cautioned the judiciary against encroaching upon the domains of the legislature and the executive.

The ruling had triggered a fierce debate on judicial overreach.

SC to consider framing guidelines on PILs

The Supreme Court on Friday said it will consider laying down guidelines governing public interest litigation (PIL).

"It is better to have some guidelines whether these types of PILs can be entertained," said a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan.

The Chief Justice decided to address the issue when a PIL relating to rehabilitation of sex workers referred to it by a bench headed by Justice S B Sinha came up for hearing.

Justice Sinha had referred the matter in view of the observations made by the bench comprising Justices A K Mathur and Markandeya Katju and had said it was not clear what was the power of the court in dealing with PILs.


On Tuesday, the court found itself plagued by self-doubt over its power to entertain PILs when a bench of Justices Sinha and Bedi refused to hear a lawsuit by non-governmental organisation Prajawla on the legal status of sex workers. It referred the lawsuit to the bench of Chief Justice Balakrishnan, asking whether court benches were entitled at all to hear the PILs "in view of" Justice Katju's ruling. This also left Delhi High Court judges rattled as the ruling had either declared illegal or questioned the rationality of several recent judgements of the high court. The ruling has led to more than one bench of the high court refraining from hearing PILs during the week. The rancour in the judiciary reached the bench of Chief Justice Balakrishnan Thursday when counsel appearing for another PIL apprehended that the bench might not hear it at all owing to the "judicial activism" judgement.

However, the chief justice's bench observed that his was a three-judge bench and a two-judge bench ruling on "judicial activism" was not binding.

But even that failed to clear the confusion whether the ruling was not binding merely on three-judge benches of the court or not binding at all on any high court. While admitting the need to have an elaborate guideline for entertaining PILs, the bench of Chief Justice Balakrishnan adjourned the hearing on the PIL related to the conditions of sex workers for Feb 23.

'Judicial activism' order holds up court order on Bluelines

New Delhi, Dec 14 Despite the Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan clearing the air over judicial activism, Delhi High Court Friday did not pass an order on entertaining a public suit on Blueline buses.

A division bench headed by Justices Mukul Mudgal and Reva Khetarpal refrained from passing an order on the growing number of accidents caused by the privately owned Blueline buses.

"We have to see the effect of the Supreme Court order (of Dec 6) on the proceedings of this case," said the bench, adding, "We have not had the time to go through the judgement. It has just been handed over to us by the amicus curiae."

The bench was hearing a suo motu matter, which it had earlier taken into cognisance, on the growing number of Blueline accidents.

The court refused to pass any order on the matter without going through the apex court judgement, which had deprecated the tendency of "judicial overreach".

"The apex court ruling of 1997 is that the judiciary and bureaucracy should join hands together and work for the welfare of people," Justice Khetarpal observed.

On Dec 6, a two-bench apex court had cautioned the judiciary against indulging in judicial activism and encroaching upon the domain of the legislature and the executive, saying if the courts failed to restrain themselves the politicians would step in and curtail their power and independence.

However on Thursday, a three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India observed, "We are not bound by the two-judge bench order."

But his observation failed to clarify if the Dec 6 order, delivered by a bench of Justices A.K. Mathur and Markandey Katju, will not bind only a three-judges' bench or not be binding at all on any bench.

Meanwhile, senior counsel V.P Singh for the Blueline bus operators whose permits have been cancelled following a high court order, said the order was not justified and needed to be reviewed.

"We are just implementing the apex court order and not passing any order. Article 141 says the apex court ruling should be followed by all subordinate courts," Justice Mudgal said while posting the matter till Jan 10, next year.

On Monday, the apex court had castigated the Delhi High Court for entertaining PILs on a host of public issues, including the begging menace, nursery admissions and traffic issues particularly the Blueline menace.

Judicial crisis has 'damaged' Pakistan: Supreme Court

Islamabad, June 28 (IANS) Pakistan's Supreme Court has said that the crisis over the suspension of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry has caused "huge damage to the country".

"This is not a case but a crisis. This has caused huge damage," said Justice Khalilur Rahman Ramday, who heads a 13-member bench hearing Chaudhry's petition that challenges the presidential reference against him.

Justice Ramday observed that "a judge of the superior court should have the right to appeal against his removal", Daily Times said Thursday.

The observations came as Chaudhry's chief counsel Aitzaz Ahsan concluded his arguments after 11 working days.

Ahsan submitted that Chaudhry was ready to testify in court and, if restored, would ignore all grievances and strengthen the judiciary.

Chaudhry, whose suspension on March 9 by President Pervez Musharraf has triggered a nationwide stir, has sworn an affidavit alleging that the president and his military staff humiliated him.

He has denied the charge that he misused his office to get a posting for his son.

In response, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and his staff, Balochistan chief minister and a number of top officials in the government have filed counter-affidavits against Chaudhry.

Among other things, Chaudhry is alleged to have "pressured" the prime minister's aide to get himself a Mercedes car he was not entitled to.

Ahsan said the affidavits submitted by the president's chief of staff and chiefs of intelligence agencies were "full of contradictions".

Justice Faqir Khokhar said that had Chaudhry not filed his affidavit, the government officials would not have submitted the counter-affidavits.

Ahsan argued that the government affidavits were not meant to give a reply but to malign the CJP. "It was an executive attack on the judiciary," he said.

Thereupon, Justice Ramday said that the court would not take cognisance of the counter-affidavits.

- In Association with IANS