oppn parties Judges Should be Punished for Disregarding SC Guidelines

News Snippets

  • Crude prices fall sharply as Saudi Arabia assures normal production in a few weeks. Prices fall by 5.4% to $65.30 per barrel
  • Sensex tumbles 700 points over fears that rising crude prices will deal a body blow to the tottering Indian economy
  • As Rajeev Kumar fails to appear before the CBI despite several notices, the agency forms a special team to locate and apprehend him
  • S Jaishankar says Pakistan is not a normal neighbour and its behaviour is a "set of aberrations"
  • External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar says PoK in Indian territory and the country hopes to have physical jurisdiction over it one day
  • Barasat Sessions court near Kolkata rejects Rajeev Kumar anticipatory bail application citing lack of jurisdiction as the reason
  • PM Modi celebrates his birthday with Narmada aarti and later has lunch with his mother.
  • All 6 Bahujan Samaj Party MLAs merge with the Congress in Rajasthan
  • Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee to meet PM Modi on Wednesday, state issues on the agenda
  • Pakistan to open Kartarpur corridor on Nov 9
  • Rajeev Kumar, ex-police commissioner of Kolkata and wanted for questioning in the Sarada scam does not appear before the CBI despite the state administration requesting him to do so
  • Supreme Court asks the Centre to restore normalcy in J&K but keeping national interest in mind
  • As Trump accepts the invitation to attend a programme in Houston with PM Modi, India rushes to settle trade issues with US
  • After drone attack on Aramco's Suadi Arabia facility, oil prices jump 19% in intra-day trading causing worries for India
  • Imran Khan raises nuclear war bogey again, says if Pakistan loses a conventional war, it might fight till the end with its nuclear arsenal
Sunni Wakf Board and Nirvani Akhara write to the Supreme Court for a negotiated settlement to the Ayodhya dispute
oppn parties
Judges Should be Punished for Disregarding SC Guidelines

By Sunil Garodia

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Writes for a number of publications.
Is it enough for a high court judge to recall an order which he passed after a rap from the Supreme Court? One is of the opinion that there should be more to it.

When a high court judge passes an order that disregards repeated Supreme Court observations and is not supported by any statute, it is definitely not enough for that judge to simply recall that order to set right his mistake. This luxury to escape punishment for doing something wrong and illegal should not be afforded to a person of the status of a high court judge.

The question that needs to be asked is that did the judge meet the ends of justice in his original order. Did he follow the law, rules and procedures when he signed the same? Or did he let his personal prejudices colour his judgment?

One is talking about the Madras high court judgment that allowed a rapist to be released on bail in order to facilitate a compromise with the family of the raped girl. Despite repeated observations by the apex court that rapists should not be shown any leniency and that compromises reached do not in any way lessen the original crime, lower courts have in many cases tended to show undue favours to the rapists.

Now, after the apex court lashed out against such orders in a recent judgment overturning a MP high court judgment lessening the charge on a rapist, the Madras high court has recalled its order. But that is not enough.

There should be a mechanism where such ‘illegal’ orders â€" influenced by the personal prejudices of a judge- should be held against the judge and he should be punished for it. Even in government offices, a blunder of lesser magnitude is reason enough for a show cause notice being served on the offender. So why judges should have the immunity to carry on working unchallenged despite such technically unsound judgments?

If the judges knew that they will be pulled up for a legally unsound judgment (interpreting the law in a different way is of course the prerogative of every judge and falls outside this) that goes against Supreme Court observations, they will be more careful and litigants will get better justice. The Supreme Court has just thrown up its hands in despair when such an order has reached it. It has observed more than once in recent times that the lower courts are not strictly following its directives. If this continues, the law will be made an ass and unnecessary appeals, further jamming the already clogged system will be the result.