Court procedures: India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents |
Audio-video recordings
2016: govt reminds CJI
The Times of India, Jan 30 2016
Pradeep Thakur
Start audio-video recordings, govt reminds CJI
For the second time in less than a year, the government has reminded the Chief Justice of India about starting audio-video recording of court proceedings which is meant to bring transparency in the justice delivery system and accountability in conduct of judges who allow too many adjournments. In his letter to CJI T S Thakur, law minister Sadananda Gowda requested him to allow the government to begin audio-video recording on a pilot basis in a few district courts -indicating that the Supreme Court and high courts could remain out of the ambit of such transpa rency measures for now.
In July 2015, the law mini ster too had made the demand for audio-video recordings to the then CJI on the basis of a strong recommen dation by the then law commission chairman Justice A P Shah who did not see any reason in opposing such a proposal as it would only help in “bringing more accountability to the judiciary“.
The apex court since 2014 has always opposed the need to introduce audio-video recordings, with a judgment in January 2015 rejecting the idea. In view of SC's reluctance, the government even considered bringing in amendments to introduce audio-video recordings.
The SC secretary general, in the advisory council meeting, had mentioned the SC's dismissal of petitions seeking approval for audiovideo recording of judicial proceedings. “The view was that our court system has not reached the level where video recording of court proceedings can be permitted,“ he had said.
The minister's recent letter to the CJI comes ahead of the next advisory council meeting on February 16. The plan for audio-video recording was included in PhaseII of the e-court project where the government has allocated Rs 1,670 crore for its implementation.
Courtroom etiquette: India
Calling judges lord, lordship, your honour
Calling judges lord, lordship, your honour not mandatory: Supreme Court
PTI | [1] Jan 6, 2014
NEW DELHI: Judges should be addressed in courts in a respectful and dignified manner and it is not compulsory to call them "my lord", "your lordship" or "your honour", the Supreme Court today said.
"When did we say it is compulsory. You can only call us in a dignified manner," a bench comprising justices H L Dattu and S A Bobde observed during the hearing of a petition which said addressing judges as "my lord or your lordship" in courts is a relic of colonial era and a sign of slavery.
"To address the court what do we want. Only a respectable way of addressing. You call (judges) sir, it is accepted. You call it your honour, it is accepted. You call lordship it is accepted.These are some of the appropriate way of expression which are accepted," it said while refusing to entertain the PIL filed by 75-year-old advocate Shiv Sagar Tiwari.
The bench said his plea for banning the use of such terms and directing the courts that the judges should not be addressed in such a traditional manner cannot be accepted.
"How can this negative prayer be accepted by us," the bench asked, adding "Don't address us as lordship. We don't say anything. We only say address us respectfully."
"Can we direct the high courts on your prayers? It is obnoxious," the bench further said while making it clear that "It is for you to say Sir, Your Lordship or Your Honour. We can't direct how you have to address the court."
"It is the choice of the lawyer to address the court. Why should we say that brother judges should not accept being addressed as lordship. We have not taken exception when you call as sir," the bench said.
Madras HC: Don't address judges by name, remove collarbands, no long adjournments
The Times of India, Aug 25 2015
Don't address judges by name, HC tells lawyers
Don't address judges by name while arguing, remove your collarbands and no long adjournments -these were some of curt commands the Madras high court gave when two Madurai-based lawyers appeared before it in connection with contempt of court proceedings on Monday . On July 28, a bench of Justice S Tamilvanan and Justice C T Selvam had issued notices to Madurai Bar Association president A K Ramasamy and secretary A Dharmarajan, asking them why suo motu contempt proceedings of should not be initiated against them on the basis of reports from judicial officers and high court officials about incidents during an agitation by advocates in Madurai in the aftermath of a high court order making helmets compulsory for twowheeler riders from July 1.
Ramasamy addressed the lead ing judge by name and wanted early disposal of the case.Justice Tamilvanan asked him not to mention judges by name, and then agreed to hear the matter.
Later, he disallowed Ramasamy from advancing arguments after he informed the court that he had engaged Madras high court advocates association president R C Paul Kanagaraj as his counsel.He first asked Ramasamy to remove the collar band and then made it clear that he could not argue.
When counsel sought immediate disposal, the bench again said they have set out the charges and the contemnors should first file a counter-affidavit.Then their counsel sought adjournment by eight weeks. This was also disallowed by judges, who gave just a fortnight for them to come back and argue.
This infuriated about 50 advocates accompanying the Ramasamy and Dharmajan. They shouted slogans in the court corridor accusing some judges of misdeeds. They assembled near the Madras Bar Association entrance and vowed never to allow some judges to `come to Madurai'. They also chased a news reporter when he tried to photograph them.
Mental and physical fitness tests for lawyers: SC
The Times of India, Sep 12 2015
AmitAnand Choudhary
Lawyers must face fitness tests to appear in court: SC
The Supreme Court has said that lawyers should be put to mental and physical fitness tests to be prove their eligibility to conduct trials in criminal cases and to ensure that litigants don't suffer on account of their incompetence. A bench of Justices J S Khehar and Adarsh K Goel said the Advocates Act and the relevant rules needed to be reviewed to incorporate a provision for giving fitness certificate to an advocate to appear in court. The court's observation came while rejecting the plea of the Uber rape case accused who sought recall of witnesses on the ground that his lawyer was incompetent. “Perhaps time has come to review the Advocates Act and the relevant rules to examine the continued fitness of an advocate to conduct a criminal trial on account of advanced age or other mental or physical infirmity , to avoid grievance that an advocate who conducted trial was unfit or incompetent. This is an aspect which needs to be looked into by the concerned authorities including the Law Commission and the Bar Council of India,“ the court said.
The bench said the interest of justice would suffer if the counsel conducting the trial was physically or mentally unfit on account of any disability and this should not be allowed. “The interest of society is paramount and instead of trials being conducted again on account of unfitness of the counsel, reform may appear to be necessary so that such a situation does not arise,“ it said.
Fees, court-
Delhi HC annuls Court Fees Amendment
PTI, HC verdict finds place in Yale journal Sep 19 2016
A landmark judgement of the Delhi high court, which had struck down an 1870 law on court fees, has found place, along with four others from around the world, in a prestigious international journal published by the Yale Law School.
The judgement penned in 2013 by Justice Gita Mittal had struck down The Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act 2012 after declaring it “invalid and ultra vires the Constitution.“
The judge, who was heading the bench along with Justice J R Midha, had held that Delhi Legislative Assembly did not have the legislative competence to amend the Court Fees Act, 1870 and directed government to refund the higher amount collected from litigants as the amendment came in 2012.
In its publication `Global Constitutionalism 2015', which is part of the Gruber Program for global justice and human rights, the law school has incorporated the landmark judgement along with two from the European Court of Human Rights, one each from the Supreme Courts of the United States and Canada.
Protests against court orders
2016: SC cites 2009 judgment
`Duty Of K'Taka, TN To Quell Cauvery Stir'
The Supreme Court said in Sepy 2016 that no one could agitate on the streets or call bandhs to protest against a court order and once again rebuked the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu governments for failing to curb mob violence over the Cauvery water dispute.
A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and U U Lalit said, “The people cannot become a law unto themselves and, therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the authorities of both states, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, to prevent such actions. We are compelled and constrained to say that it is the duty of the states to see that no agitation, damage or destruction takes place.“ The bench's September 12 order reducing the daily release of Cauvery water by Karnataka from 15,000 cusecs to 12,000 cusecs did not quell violent protests in both states, despite the court warning the governments and the protesters of dire consequences.
On a PIL by social activist P Sivakumar from Kanyakumari seeking a direction to the authorities in both states to take preventive measures to quell violent protests, the bench said, “The fundamental purpose is that there can not be any agitation when it relates to an order passed by the court. It (a court order) is to be complied with and, in any case, if there is difficulty, the concerned parties can approach the court.“
After asking both state counsels to be prepared to answer questions on their failure to maintain law and order, the bench said, “We sincerely hope that wisdom shall prevail over the competent authorities of both states to maintain peace.“ Shivakumar's counsel Adish Agrawala said inhabitants of both states were resorting to competitive protests against the SC order directing Karnataka to release water to Tamil Nadu. “If one party resorts to `rail roko' (stopping train services) on one day , the other party emulates it the next day ,“ he said.
The court said it felt the situation was returning to normal. However, Agrawala said there were fresh inci dents of violence and the `rail roko' agitation was on in Karnataka on Thursday , while Tamil Nadu protesters have decided to do the same on Friday .
The bench extracted guidelines laid down by the apex court in its 2009 judgment for the police in handling violent protests. “The state government shall prepare a report on the police reports and other information that may be available to it and shall file a petition including its report in the high court or the Supreme Court as the case may be for the court in question to take suo motu action,“ the SC had said in 2009.
Use of particular expressions
'Separatist': can't use that term in court
[Dhananjay Mahapatra & Shailaja Neelakantan | SC rejects plea to stop central funds for Kashmiri 'separatists'Sep 14, 2016, The Times of India]
The Supreme Court not only dismissed a PIL that sought to stop Central funds and security being given to 'separatists' in Kashmir, it also slammed a lawyer for calling Hurriyat leaders 'separatists' and refused to use that term in its order.
"It's a matter of perception. Has the government declared them separatists? The conduct of a man may not be to the liking of others and (so) they call him separatist, but you can't use that term in court," a Supreme Court bench of Justices Dipak Misra and UU Lalit said.
’Judiciary cannot examine what funds are given to whom’
The PIL filed on September 8 said that more than Rs 100 crore is spent - for foreign travel, security and other expenses - on separatists by the government. On top of that, the PIL said, the separatists then misuse the money for anti-India activities+ .
To that, the apex court today said the judiciary cannot examine what funds are given to whom+ , when it comes to managing the situation in a sensitive state like Jammu and Kashmir. It added that any security cover given by a government to a citizen who faces threats, is completely within the domain of the executive.
"Security issues cannot be handled through judicial proceedings and courts must desist (from) entertaining such issues," the bench chastised ML Sharma, a lawyer who filed the plea in his personal capacity.
The court's comments seem like an about-turn from the ones it made on September 8 2016 when it decided on which date to hear the PIL. At the time, the court said it felt the same as the petitioner who filed the PIL to stop funding the so-called separatists+ .
"We also share the same feeling. Everybody sitting here feels the same" the country's top court said, according to ANI, to the petitioner ML Sharma.
