can you please give me a debate on the topic - ' indian judiciary has always been transparent and flawless '
the debate should be against this topic.
plz fast.
Answers
Answered by
0
Indian judiciary is not always been transparent and flawless
against :::----☺☺☺☺⬇⬇⬇⬇
The question of judicial appointments has reached centre stage. The new government has started a process of consultation in relation to two Bills — the Constitution Amendment Bill and the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill. The bills were an attempt by the previous government to take over judicial appointments. First, the composition of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) can be modified by Parliament by ordinary law. Second, the independence and impartiality of the proposed JAC will be undermined by the JAC Secretariat being made a department of government. Third, the expenses and salaries, etc of the JAC would not be charged to the Consolidated Fund of India and will be dependent on budgetary control by the Executive.
The Supreme Court and the High courts have their independent registries, where appointments are made by or at the direction of Chief Justices (Article 146 and Article 229 respectively), ensuring total freedom from political interference and political domination.
Collegium system⬇⬇⬇⬇
The debate raises many important questions — whether the JAC should be a permanent body with permanent members and a fixed tenure, rather than one with ex officio holders of judicial office who are all birds of passage with a limited tenure; whether the convention that the senior-most Supreme Court Judge be appointed Chief Justice of India (CJI) should be disregarded; whether the judiciary should have a dominant voice, and whether there should be a veto for dissenting members against the judicial members.
Need for openness☺☺☺☺⬇⬇⬇⬇
The focus of this article is only on openness and transparency in the appointment procedure and on the necessity of providing relevant principles and guidelines in the Constitutional Amendment Bill.
All democracies are swiftly moving toward an open government and a citizen’s right to know — an international trend increasingly being supported by judicial decisions.
Further, the right to know is part of the freedom of speech and expression and the present secretive system, as implemented by the collegium, violates this fundamental right.
Publicity, the soul of justice⬇⬇⬇
The principle of open justice and public trial is essential for the fair administration of justice. In the celebrated case of Scott v. Scott, observations by the 19th century philosopher Jeremy Bentham were quoted: “In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial.” and “The security of securities is publicity.
Why should this salutary principle not apply to the process of judicial appointments? “In camera” trials are ordered where the parties and witnesses require protection or a fair trial is prejudiced. In the functioning of the JAC or any other machinery for judicial appointments, no litigating parties are involved and the potential candidates who voluntarily participate must agree to an open and transparent process.
The present secretive process followed by the collegium excludes public scrutiny, violates the citizen’s right to know and leads to diminishing respect for the judiciary.
He further observed: “Now, if the secrecy were to be observed in the functioning of government and the processes of government were to be kept hidden from public scrutiny, it would tend to promote and encourage oppression, corruption and misuse or abuse of authority, for it would all be shrouded in the veil of secrecy without any public accountability.”
“We believe in an open government and openness in government does not mean openness merely in the functioning of the executive arms of the state. The same openness must characterise the functioning of the judicial apparatus including judicial appointments and transfers.”
Informed debate⬇⬇⬇⬇
In sum, one does not want a differently constituted appointing authority operating in secrecy.
Lord Steyn in the House of Lords observed: “The principle of open justice puts, as has often been said, the judge and all who participate in the trial under intense scrutiny … Informed public debate is necessary about all such matters … It promotes the value of the rule of law.”
Surely, a judiciary which considers the rule of law a part of its basic structure must abandon the culture of secrecy that envelops the present appointment process.
❤❤❤❤hope it helps ❤❤❤❤.
all the best for your competation
against :::----☺☺☺☺⬇⬇⬇⬇
The question of judicial appointments has reached centre stage. The new government has started a process of consultation in relation to two Bills — the Constitution Amendment Bill and the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill. The bills were an attempt by the previous government to take over judicial appointments. First, the composition of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) can be modified by Parliament by ordinary law. Second, the independence and impartiality of the proposed JAC will be undermined by the JAC Secretariat being made a department of government. Third, the expenses and salaries, etc of the JAC would not be charged to the Consolidated Fund of India and will be dependent on budgetary control by the Executive.
The Supreme Court and the High courts have their independent registries, where appointments are made by or at the direction of Chief Justices (Article 146 and Article 229 respectively), ensuring total freedom from political interference and political domination.
Collegium system⬇⬇⬇⬇
The debate raises many important questions — whether the JAC should be a permanent body with permanent members and a fixed tenure, rather than one with ex officio holders of judicial office who are all birds of passage with a limited tenure; whether the convention that the senior-most Supreme Court Judge be appointed Chief Justice of India (CJI) should be disregarded; whether the judiciary should have a dominant voice, and whether there should be a veto for dissenting members against the judicial members.
Need for openness☺☺☺☺⬇⬇⬇⬇
The focus of this article is only on openness and transparency in the appointment procedure and on the necessity of providing relevant principles and guidelines in the Constitutional Amendment Bill.
All democracies are swiftly moving toward an open government and a citizen’s right to know — an international trend increasingly being supported by judicial decisions.
Further, the right to know is part of the freedom of speech and expression and the present secretive system, as implemented by the collegium, violates this fundamental right.
Publicity, the soul of justice⬇⬇⬇
The principle of open justice and public trial is essential for the fair administration of justice. In the celebrated case of Scott v. Scott, observations by the 19th century philosopher Jeremy Bentham were quoted: “In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial.” and “The security of securities is publicity.
Why should this salutary principle not apply to the process of judicial appointments? “In camera” trials are ordered where the parties and witnesses require protection or a fair trial is prejudiced. In the functioning of the JAC or any other machinery for judicial appointments, no litigating parties are involved and the potential candidates who voluntarily participate must agree to an open and transparent process.
The present secretive process followed by the collegium excludes public scrutiny, violates the citizen’s right to know and leads to diminishing respect for the judiciary.
He further observed: “Now, if the secrecy were to be observed in the functioning of government and the processes of government were to be kept hidden from public scrutiny, it would tend to promote and encourage oppression, corruption and misuse or abuse of authority, for it would all be shrouded in the veil of secrecy without any public accountability.”
“We believe in an open government and openness in government does not mean openness merely in the functioning of the executive arms of the state. The same openness must characterise the functioning of the judicial apparatus including judicial appointments and transfers.”
Informed debate⬇⬇⬇⬇
In sum, one does not want a differently constituted appointing authority operating in secrecy.
Lord Steyn in the House of Lords observed: “The principle of open justice puts, as has often been said, the judge and all who participate in the trial under intense scrutiny … Informed public debate is necessary about all such matters … It promotes the value of the rule of law.”
Surely, a judiciary which considers the rule of law a part of its basic structure must abandon the culture of secrecy that envelops the present appointment process.
❤❤❤❤hope it helps ❤❤❤❤.
all the best for your competation
Similar questions