The stability of a nation largely depends on the citizens’ absolute faith in the judiciary. In this context, is it a right way for the judges to dissent publicly to address an internal rift?
Refer – The Hindu
Enrich the answer from other sources, if the question demands.
IAS Parliament 6 years
KEY POINTS
· A strong and united judiciary is the sine qua non for a strong and vibrant democracy.
· If the judiciary of a country is divided and polarised, it will have a direct effect on the very survival of democracy in that country.
Positives of public debate
· It will create a public opinion about the functioning or non-functioning of the Supreme Court.
· It ensures accountability and transparency in administrative functions of the judiciary.
· It will create an opportunity to restore the problems with full vigour, as it is now known to the public, who are the ultimate sovereign in our democracy.
Negatives of public debate
· The judiciary is the last ray of hope for the common man and they pay utmost respect to the judiciary.
· If that faith in the judiciary is hampered in any manner, the result is a huge loss to the country and to the judiciary.
· This might also set a bad precedent for the subordinate judiciary to air their differences over their senior Judges and will result in anarchy if that happen.
· Political parties will try to settling scores, by accusing each other of interference in the judiciary.
· Moreover, public conferences have had the effect of bringing into public debate the conduct of various judges, a course of action which the constitution-makers wanted to avoid.
Other alternatives
· The judges can call for a full-court meeting where they can discuss the issue and found a solution.
· Otherwise, they can also seek the intervention of the President to resolve the issues, as appointments of judges are issued in his name.
· Informing and seeking the intervention of the President will also ensure that there was no interference in the judiciary.
· But, this option is also criticised as meeting the President would be similar to submitting to the executive.
RAJESH KUMAR 6 years
INTERNAL RIFT AND PUBLIC DISSENT IN JUDIACIARY:
RECENTLY, FOUR JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT PUBLICALLY SAID THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT IS ASSIGNING CASES TO PARTICULAR JUDGES ONLY.
CONSEQUENCES OF THE PUBLIC MEET:
CITIZENS ALWAYS SEE AND HAVE HIGH FAITH IN JUDICIARY, AND BELIEVE THEIR CASES WERE HEARD AND JUDGEMENT WERE GIVEN IN HONEST WAY. BUT AFTER SEEING THE JUDGES GOING PUBLIC, PEOPLE MIGHT THINK AND DOUBT THE CREDIBILITY OF JUDICIARY.
THOUGH IT IS UNETHICAL TO BLAME THE CJI, THEY SAID "DISCHARGE OF DUTY TO THE NATION" WHICH BROUGHT THEM TO THE PUBLIC. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THEY HAVE MET THE CJI ON MORNING BEFORE GOING PUBLIC, BUT LITTLE DID THE MEETING DONE TO RESOLVE THE CRISIS THEMSELVES.
INDEED CJI IS MASTER OF ROSTER, AND ASSIGNING CASES TO THE JUDGES IS HIS DISCRETORY FUNCTION, BUT USAGE OF THE POWER SHOULD NOT BE IN LINE WITH QUESTIONABLE SITUATION.
IAS Parliament 6 years
Try to avoid getting in to a particular issue, when the question is asked in general terms. Instead, try to quote it as an example. Add more relevant points. Keep writing.
