Tag Archives: Supreme court

Jobs, Opportunities

Law Clerk-cum-Research Associates at Supreme Court 2026 [90 Seats, Salary Rs 1L]: Apply by Feb 7

Leave a comment

About Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India is the nation’s highest court, serving as the final court of appeal and the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, safeguarding citizens’ fundamental rights and settling disputes between government bodies.

Established in 1950, it has the power of judicial review, can hear appeals from High Courts, issue writs, and offer advisory opinions to the President, with its judgments being binding on all other courts. Comprising the Chief Justice of India and up to 33 other judges, it handles civil, criminal, constitutional, and advisory matters.

About the Job

Online applications are invited in terms of “Scheme of Engaging Law Clerk-cum-Research Associates on Short-Term Contractual Assignment in the Supreme Court of India-January, 2024*, as amended”. This is for the preparation of a panel of approximately 90 candidates. They will engage as Law Clerks-cum-Research Associates in the Supreme Court of India. The role is purely on a contractual assignment initially. It offers a consolidated remuneration of ₹1,00,000/- per month for the assignment term 2026-2027.

Eligibility

  • The candidate must be a Law Graduate (before taking up the assignment as Law Clerk) having a Bachelor Degree in Law (including Integrated Degree Course in Law) from any School/College/University/Institution established by law in India and recognized by the Bar Council of India for enrolment as an Advocate.
  • The candidate studying in the fifth year of the Five-Year Integrated Law Course or the third year of the Three-Year Law Course after graduation in any stream will also be eligible to apply, subject to furnishing proof of acquiring Law qualification before taking up the assignment as Law Clerk-cum-Research Associate.
  • The candidate must have research and analytical skills, writing abilities, and knowledge of computer, including retrieval of desired information from various search engines/processes such as e-SCR, Manupatra, SCC Online, LexisNexis, Westlaw, etc.

Age Limit: The candidate must not be below the age of 20 years and above 32 years as on 07.02.2026.

Mode 

Onsite

Salary

Rs 1 lakh

Location

New Delhi

Last Date to Apply 

07.02.2026

Application Fee

Eligible candidates are required to apply online for which the link will be provided through Supreme Court website, http://www.sci.gov.in. 

The application will be accepted through online registration only, from 20.01.2026. The candidates will be required to pay non-refundable Application/Test Fee of ₹750/- plus bank charges, if applicable, through online mode only. Fee shall not be accepted in any other form. No postal application shall be accepted. 

The fee shall be paid online through Payment Gateway provided by UCO Bank. 

Application Procedure

Click Here to Apply.

The official notification is here.

Legal News

SC PASSES INTERIM ORDER ALLOWING WOMEN TO APPEAR FOR NDA EXAM, SLAMS ‘GENDER DISCRIMINATION’

Leave a comment

SC Passes Interim Order Allowing Women to Appear for NDA Exam, Slams 'Gender Discrimination'

While issuing the order, the court criticised the Army for not permitting women to take part in the NDA exam.

The present public interest petition raises the issue of violation of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India by denying the opportunity to eligible and willing female candidates to join the National Defence Academy.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday passed an interim order to allow women to take the admission exam to National Defence Academy (NDA), even as the Centre said women cannot claim violation of any fundamental right for being denied entry as the male cadets trained there do not have any automatic advantage in future career advancement prospects over the women whose only route to enter the Army is by recruitment through short service commission.

The result would be subject to final adjudication of the petitions. A division bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy passed the interim order in a writ petition filed by Kush Kalra seeking permission for women candidates to appear for the NDA exam.

While issuing the order, the court criticised the Army for not permitting women to take part in the NDA exam. When the Army’s counsel submitted that it is a policy decision, the top court said that the said policy decision was based on “gender discrimination”.

The present public interest petition raises the issue of violation of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India by denying the opportunity to eligible and willing female candidates to join the National Defence Academy and afford them a chance to enrol, train and develop themselves in the National Defence Academy into future leaders of the Indian Armed Forces.

For more Legal Updates; Join Team Attorneylex’s WhatsApp group to get notified immediately. Also check us out on Instagram and Twitter

Articles

Sedition: The Self-Inflicted Wound

Leave a comment

This Case Summary is written by Ritunjay Singh & Shruti Parashar, students of Dr Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University

“If I were to remain silent, I’d be guilty of complicity.”― Albert Einstein

When people censor the government, then democracy is in the right hands, but if they are punished for the same, the nation is heading towards doom because in a democracy the sovereignty lies with the people and not the government. To say that there must be no criticism of the government or that we are to stand by it, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile but morally despicable.

Sedition increasingly has become a law which is being used to curb every kind of dissent. Many nations have abrogated this colonial law and have called those nations out which curb free speech and expression in its name. For example, Britain itself abolished sedition as a criminal offence in 2009 as it was considered to be a relic of an era where freedom of expression was not considered a right as it is now. According to Claire Ward (The then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice), “The existence of these obsolete offences in this country has been used by other countries as justification for the retention of similar laws which have been actively used to suppress political dissent and restrict press freedom” We are noticing a similar trend in the way this law is being misused. Opposition leaders, Intellectuals, activists, Journalists, authors, students have all been forced to face charges. Before moving any further, we need to look at its history a bit. We also need to understand the circumstances in which this law was brought in and whether or not it’s time to scrap this law. 

Sedition law finds its origin during the British rule in India. Many believe that the only motive behind bringing such a law was to curb the voices which opposed the crown in power during the Indian freedom movement. This law belongs to the time when the divine right of the King and the principles of a feudal society were not questioned. And it is not much surprising that during those times a lot of criticisms were curbed, and legit voices were crumbled down. From the great freedom fighters Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, Maulana Azad to Mahatma Gandhi, all have been tried under this law. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), as we have today, was absent from the original draft of Macaulay’s IPC in 1860, and was only introduced in the year 1870, piloted by James Stephen. This law was based on UK’s Treason Felony Act 1848 and was added to mainly prevent the Wahabi uprising. After much discussion in the Constituent Assembly the word “sedition” did disappear from the constitution when it was adopted on 26 November 1949, but section 124A stayed in the IPC.

According to the IPC 1860, Section 124A Sedition is defined as: “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added.”  Also, sedition is a non-bailable offence which makes it even harsher and the punishment varies from three years imprisonment to imprisonment for life. The irony lies in the fact that the British bought Sedition as a non-cognizable offence while independent India made it a cognizable offence in 1973.

Let us understand through a series of reasons as to why sedition needs to be done away with as a law or at least its ambiguity and vagueness demands a serious reconsideration. First and foremost, the restrictions for the right to freedom of speech and expression have already been laid down under article 19(2) of the Indian constitution. In stark difference to the sedition law which strives to primarily curb voices that goes against the government, article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interest of the security of the State. The latter makes sense as the security of state refers to serious and aggravated forms of public disorder, example rebellion, waging war against the state whereas the former by its very nature questions thoughts and expression that opposes the government in power. 

At the extreme, even tendencies to peacefully overthrow an incapable government is not a crime because it is a fundamental right of every citizen in the country to overthrow a kind of government which is incapable, corrupt and which acts against the common interest of people without violence, by persuading the people, by exposing its faults in the administration, its method of working etc.

Also, the claim that Section 124A of the IPC has its utility in combating anti-national, secessionist, terrorist activities and Maoist insurgencies fails miserably on two grounds. First being a reminder of the other existent laws those have been specifically drafted to deal with such anti-national, terrorist activities and Maoist insurgency. Laws like NSA, PDA, UAPA and AFSPA have been given enough power to protect the integrity of our state. These are some of the harshest laws that exist in any democracy in the world and yet the proponents argue that we need a parallel law like sedition to deal with the same kind of cases. Maybe the reason lies under the fact that any government feels more autonomous when it holds the power to protect itself against any criticism. 

The second reason daunts even more. Had it been so that this law would have been any useful in controlling the terrorist or the anti-national activities, there would have been at least some merit in holding it. But the past record of the government itself displays the reality. Realities like sedition cases rising by 160%, between 2016 and 2019, while the conviction rate for such offences dropping from 33.3% to 3.3% for the same period.It’s not one or two cases that question the merit of sedition, but a series of frivolous cases rising every now and then. In 2019, An FIR under many charges including sedition was filed against the 49 celebrities who had written an open letter to the Prime Minister against the increasing cases of mob lynching in the country. The allegations were that those letters “tarnished the image of the country and undermined the impressive performance of the prime minister” besides “supporting secessionist tendencies”. In the same year in Jharkhand’s Khunti district, some 10,000 Aadivasis who were part of the pathalghadi movement were charged under Sedition. The protest movement was started by tribals as a resistance movement to assert their rights, including the right to sovereign territory guaranteed by the Indian constitution. Last year, a Karnataka School’s play on CAA and NRC led to a sedition charge against the authorities and the parent of a student who just went to attend the play. Among many charges was one that said, “The dialogues used in the play were an insult to the PM”. This is just a blatant abuse of power.

One of the most recent judgements on sedition by the Supreme Court is the case of Padmashri recipient journalist Vinod Dua. An F.I.R was filed against the journalist in Himachal Pradesh by a BJP leader. In this case, the BJP leader seemed to disagree with the accused’s views posted on his YouTube channel where he can be seen criticizing the honourable Prime Minister. When the matter was referred to the SC, Dua told the Supreme Court that criticism of the government was not in itself seditious unless it instigated violence. He added “Moreover, if I criticise the PM, that does not come under criticism of the government.” The Supreme Court quashed the F.I.R saying, “Every journalist will be entitled to the protection under Kedar Nath Singh [sedition] judgement.”

Many sedition cases registered since Independence have failed to withstand judicial scrutiny. The Punjab-Haryana High Court in Tara Singh Gopi Chand v the State, struck down Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which defines sedition, holding it to be unconstitutional as it was contrary to the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a). Eight years later, in Ram Nandan case, the Allahabad HC held that Section 124A imposed restrictions on the freedom of speech which was not in the interest of the public and declared it ultra vires. 

In the landmark Kedar Nath case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the sedition law. Justice Sinha however, explained, “Comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of the actions of the government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal. In other words, disloyalty to the government established by law is not the same thing as commenting in strong terms upon the measures or acts of the government, or its agencies, so as to ameliorate the condition of the people…”

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh Vs. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia case is one of the most important free speech judgements in the Supreme Court’s history. It marked a decisive break with a jurisprudence that the court had developed in the 1950s.By actively requiring the state to demonstrate the proximity between speech and violence or disorder, the court ensured that the word “reasonable” in Article 19(2) was not rendered entirely meaningless. The Court also said that the fear of violence should not be far-fetched or hypothetical.

Unless and until a criticism has some inherent tendencies to bring hatred towards the state (as has also been laid down by the SC)every citizen is entitled to the rights of Freedom of speech and expression. A criticism in a democracy might range from opposing some policies of a government to questioning its credibility to hold on to power.The different cases presented above and the gazillion others ranging between them do not have any insidious tendency underlying. Henceforth, it would be an utter mockery of a democracy to silent those voices in the name of sedition. The issue remains unaddressed that can any government under any circumstance charge individuals under sedition just because it believes that those words can lead to violence.

The haunting concern is, where do we draw that boundary between euphonious statements and those which are antagonistic prima facie but true criticisms and then those which might lead to some small resistance and protests but were not spoken or written with the slightest such intent and finally those which are inherently insidious to give rise to hatred and violence in society. Most governments holding such a miraculous power would charge all the cases but one under sedition. The reason lies underneath the kind of dictatorial set up that we are morphing into. We seem to be receding speedily on the scale of tolerance every other day.

Hence to hold the pillars of democracy and strive to live to the aspirations of the kind of nation that we have always wanted to be, we need to act towards this law to end the vagueness and arbitrariness that it entails. Superficial guarantees of fundamental rights and lawful discouragement of legit speech and expression cannot co-exist in the biggest democracy of the world.

Case Summary

Swapnil Tripathi & Ors VS Supreme Court Of India & Ors

Leave a comment

This Case Summary is written by Pragati Singh, a student at Law College, Lucknow

SYNOPSIS 

The present case brought a very prominent but undeterred issue in disseminating the judgements which bind the whole territory. Moreover, the advent of pandemics and recent changes in the functioning of Courts makes this judgement more cardinal. Though the judgement is highly praised, it still has some inadequacy. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court of India with the request of making court proceedings available to litigants, advocates, students of law and the general public keeping in mind the Right Of Access to Justice and heavily packed courtrooms on miscellaneous days. 

FACTS

The petitioners and interventionists under Article 32 have sought a declaration that the Supreme Court case proceedings of “constitutional importance having an impact on the public at large or a large number of people” should be live-streamed in a manner that is easily accessible or public viewing. 

Further, the petitioners sought a proper and balanced regulatory framework before the concept of live streaming of the Court proceedings. Further, guidelines to enable the determination of exceptional cases that qualify for live streaming. 

Petitioners, to corroborate their claim, have relied on a nine-judge bench of the Apex Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. which held that Article 19(1)(a) included journalists’ right to publish a report of the proceedings which they had witnessed and heard in Court. 

In the abovementioned case, the Court emphasized about the efficacy of open trials for “upholding the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Courts and for enhancement of public confidence and support”. 

ISSUES 

Whether live dissemination of proceedings should be introduced with the aid of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and if so, under what conditions and exceptions? 

CONTENTIONS 

The petitioners submitted that the Right Of Access To Justice under Article 21 of the Constitution or be it the concept of justice at the doorstep, would be meaningful only if the public gets access to the proceedings. Live proceedings will educate public at large about the issues which come up for consideration before the Court on real time basis.

As no person can plead ignorance of law, there is corresponding obligation on the State to spread awareness about the law and the developments including the evolution of the law which may happen in the process of adjudication of cases before the Court. 

The right to know and receive information, is a facet of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the public is entitled to witness Court proceedings involving issues having an impact on the public at large or a section of the public.  

Litigants involved in large number of cases pending before the Courts throughout the country will be benefitted if access to Court proceedings is made possible by way of live streaming of Court proceedings. Hence, it will increase productivity and save time. 

Article 145(4) of the Constitution states that pronouncements of judgments by the Supreme Court shall be made in open Court. The concept of “open Court hearing” can be traced to Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 153-B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). 

Live streaming of Court proceedings with the use of technology is to “virtually” expand the court room area beyond the physical four walls of the court rooms. It will epitomize transparency, good governance and accountability, and will accommodate a large number of viewers to witness the live Court proceedings. 

Publication of court proceedings of the Supreme Court is a facet of the status of the Court as a Court of Record by virtue of Article 129 of the Constitution. 

JUDGEMENT 

Justice Khanwilkar delivered the majority judgement on behalf of himself and Chief Justice Dipak Misra. Justice Chandrachud delivered a concurring judgement. 

The Court admitted looking up to proposal of Advisory Council of the National Mission of Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms to initiate audio video recording on an experimental basis in the Courts. Policy and Action Plan Document for Phase II for the e-Courts Mission Mode Project proposed audio video recording of Court proceedings but was deferred as it required consultation with Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. 

MAJORITY JUDGEMENT 

The Court agreed with the comprehensive guidelines for live streaming of Court proceedings suggested by the Attorney General Shri K.K. Venugopal. 

The project of live streaming on the “internet” and/or on radio and TV universally by an official agency, such as Doordarshan, will be implemented in phased manner, with safeguards such that it does not interfere with the administration of justice of the Court hearing the matter and/or impinge upon any rights of the litigants or witnesses. 

The project will be executed in phases, before the commencement of first phase formal rules will be framed by the Court to incorporate the recommendations made by the learned Attorney General. 

The Court laid down measures for efficient management of the project such as; (i) appointment of technical committee, (ii) specialist video operator(s), (iii) focus and direction of the camera(s), (iv) case management system, (v) copyright of the Court over broadcast material, (vi) reproduction, re-broadcasting, transmission, publication, re-publication, copying, storage and/or modification rights and its liabilities. 

The Court reiterated that the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 will be amended to provide for the regulatory framework. Therefore, accepted the PIL in larger public interest so as to uphold the constitutional rights of public and the litigants. 

CONCURRING JUDGEMENT 

The Court addressed the importance of “principle of open justice”. Drawing a link between open justice and democratic values, R (Binyam Mohamed) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was cited. 

Open courts allow the public to view courtroom proceedings which is salient feature to maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice. Also, keeps a check on the process of adjudication in judicial proceedings.

Open courts foster public confidence by allowing litigants and public to view courtroom proceedings and ensure that the judges apply the law in a fair and impartial manner. To preserve the rule of law public confidence in the judiciary is crucial. 

All courts in India are open to the public except when the administration of justice requires public access to the court to be restricted. The concept of open court and access to justice was reinforced in majority decision of nine-judge bench in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra. 

Again, in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation value of hearing and principle that justice must also be seen to be done was reiterated. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Prof. Manubhai D. Shah Justice Ahmadi dwelt on the significance of disseminating information in a democracy. 

The essence of open courts is diminished as large segment of the society rarely witness court proceedings. This might be due to poverty, illiteracy, distance, cost and lack of awareness. Litigants depend on information provided by lawyers; others depend on the information provided about judicial decisions in newspapers. 

Taking technological developments into consideration the Court in Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam put forward the use of video conferencing for certain cases. 

Further, means and ends of technology and its implementation to fulfil the objectives of e-Courts Project were widely elaborated. Functions and application of National Judicial Data Grid and platforms created for service delivery like, e-Courts Portal, e-Courts Services mobile app, SMS Push/Pull, Automated E-Mails, Touch Screen Kiosks and Service Centre, E-Payment and E- Filing database were detailed. 

Reasoning as to why live-streaming will be beneficial to the judicial system were distinctly laid down and compared with countries across globe. A pilot project of live-streaming of national and constitutional importance for about three-months was suggested. 

The Court comprehensively laid down kind of matters to be live-streamed as a form of Model Guidelines for broadcasting of the proceedings. It further laid down manner of live streaming, technical specifications for live-streaming, communications that shall not be filmed, archiving rights and facilities and broadcast room. 

ANALYSIS 

The judgement starts with submission by the petitioners, recommendations by the learned Attorney General for India, comparative study of Courts of countries across the globe and elaborative guidelines by the Court. By means of live proceedings in the absence of official transcription, recordings will serve as oral transcripts. Dissemination of live proceedings flows from Principle of Open Court, Right to Know and Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. The judgement serves the means of transparency in Judiciary, it being the most trusted body which has been ascribed with the responsibility of keeping a check on other bodies. 

Appreciation Of The Judgement 

The judgement deems fit in taking cognizance of the matter of disseminating Right of Access to Justice which includes Right to Access Live Court Proceedings. Both majority and concurring judgement distinctively laid down guidelines, procedure, application, prevention and precautions to be taken during live proceedings. 

Criticism Of The Judgement 

  • TEST OF ALL TIMES

The advent of pandemic brought even Courts to a still but technology came as a rescue apparatus and aided the process of adjudication. After being restricted to judge, courtroom stakeholders and functionaries for a prolonged period in a very first move by Calcutta High Court, immediately after lockdown, the Kerala High Court live-streamed its proceedings. In June 2020, Delhi High Court in its highly appreciated move allowed public to witness live court proceedings. When the Supreme Court started hearing matters via video conferencing, even the Supreme Court Bar Association raised a demand for live-streaming the hearing. 

To further the ends of justice and legitimize the present case and Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., live streaming of video conferences shall be done at earliest. 

Though, in a recent move, Chief Justice N. V. Ramana in a virtual address launched an official Supreme Court mobile application which would aid journalists to view the Supreme Court’s witness virtual proceedings. However, currently the application is temporary and “only” devices registered with the Public Relations Office would be able to access links through it. Thus, the judgement fails to pass the test of all time. The Court, abiding by its own judgement should make the virtual proceedings available to public also. The Chairman of e-Committee of the Supreme Court delivered the concurring judgement and therefore, it becomes more pertinent to take cognizance of the ‘Principle of Open Justice’ which seems to be missing in these extraordinary times. 

  • THE MISSING ELEMENT 

To further Right of Access to Justice, transparency under the ambit of Article 129 of the Constitution which allows Supreme Court to publish court proceedings so that “acts and proceedings are enrolled for perpetual memory and testimony”, along with live proceedings and its archives, written briefs by the Counsels can be uploaded on a database. 

The Court may decide the exceptions in case of written briefs in a similar manner like broadcasting of cases as live proceedings. Written briefs shall be voluntary in nature and subject to concerns of privacy, confidentiality of witnesses and litigants to preserve and protect the sentiments of public at large. Publication of written briefs on public domain will serve the purpose of comprehensive understanding of the case. Further, the Court may make publication of briefs compulsory for the cases at are of utmost public importance and concern.  

It is suggested with the idea of educating the general public at large about the cases going on in the Courts of Law that stand as precedent and affect lives of each citizen and non-citizen. Publication of written brief will assist understanding of subsequent cases and interpretation of law as per the needs of the society. Moreover, as judgements too present arguments in a concise manner and case files are not easily accessible, written briefs will serve as an aid for the practising litigants and students of law. 

CONCLUSION 

Such a technology can revolutionize Indian courts indeed; but we should be wary about the fundamental rights of every citizen and Indian constitutional framework. Even in the remotest of areas, the Supreme Court of India has triumphed in its duty to uphold the flag of Right of Access to Justice. In both majority and concurring judgement, the Court enacted elaborative guidelines over the kinds of matter to be live-streamed, manner of live-stream, technical specification, archiving and other miscellaneous broadcasting rules. Hence it becomes apparent from the judgement that even the Highest Court of Appeals of India, which shoulders the burden to keep a check on the other organs of the state, desires transparency and scrutinization for the benefit of every citizen. 

Legal News

People know if things go wrong, judiciary will be with them: CJI N V Ramana

Leave a comment

Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana. Photo: Special Arrangement

“People are confident that they will get relief and justice from the judiciary. They know that when things go wrong, the judiciary will stand by them. The Indian Supreme Court is the guardian of the largest democracy,” Chief Justice of India N V Ramana said.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana on Saturday asserted that the Supreme Court would stand by the people to protect their civil liberties, while Justice D.Y. Chandrachud cautioned that any semblance of majoritarian tendencies or clampdown on civil or religious freedoms would upset a sacred promise made to the ancestors who accepted India as their Constitutional Republic.

The judge observed that the “danger to our freedoms may not only originate from those who are tasked to govern but also originate in the intolerance of persons in society as well”.

The CJI said the people of India knew that “when things go wrong”, the Supreme Court, as the guardian of the largest democracy, “will stand by them”.

The Chief Justice said the Constitution, together with the immense faith of the people in the judicial system, brought to life the Supreme Court’s motto Yato Dharma Sthato Jaya. “That is, where there is dharma, there is victory,” he explained, in his keynote address to a global audience at the Indo-Singapore Mediation Summit of 2021 organised by Singapore International Mediation Centre, CAMP Arbitration and Mediation Practice and Mediation Mantras.

Chief Justice of Singapore Sundaresh Menon congratulated Chief Justice Ramana on his recent appointment as top judge.

Chief Justice Ramana said conflicts were unavoidable in any society for a variety of reasons, including political, economic, social, cultural and religious.

But with conflicts, there was also the need to develop mechanisms for conflict resolution, the CJI stressed.

“India, and numerous Asian countries, have a long and rich tradition of collaborative and amicable settlement of disputes,” the Chief Justice stressed.

The CJI took a leaf from the Mahabharata to put his point across that peace through amicability was better than violence.

“Mahabharata, actually provides an example of an early attempt at mediation as a conflict resolution tool. Lord Krishna attempted to mediate the dispute between the Pandavas and Kauravas. It may be worthwhile to recall that the failure of mediation led to disastrous consequences,” Chief Justice Ramana said.

The Chief Justice said it was both “uncharitable” and an “overstatement” to blame pendency on judicial delay. Even a case filed 24 hours ago was added to the oft-quoted pendency statistic of 45 million cases.

“The term ‘pendency’ is used to refer to all cases which have not yet been disposed of, without any reference to how long the case has spent in the judicial system… This is, therefore, not a useful indicator of how well, or poorly, a system is doing,” Chief Justice Ramana noted.

The CJI said one of the chief reasons for delay was “luxurious litigation”.

“It is a specific type of litigation wherein parties with resources attempt to frustrate the judicial process and delay it by filing numerous proceedings across the judicial system… Undeniably, the prevailing pandemic has also contributed to our woes,” Chief Justice Ramana explained.

Another reason may be the sheer number of cases.

“This may have to be viewed in the context that India is the largest democratic republic in the world. The people believe in the constitutional project, of which the judiciary is an integral part. Judges in India, particularly in the constitutional courts, often burn the midnight oil to meet their judicial and administrative case load,” Chief Justice Ramana said.

The Chief Justice hailed the legal aid programme in the country as a “remarkable achievement,” which had ensured easier access to justice to nearly 70% of the population, particularly the poor, women, children, minorities, senior citizens and the differently abled.

The CJI referred to the impact of grassroots alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms like Lok Adalats organised by legal services authorities.

“Over 7.84 million cases were settled by the Lok Adalats in 2019 and 2020. Nearly 3.94 million cases were settled at the pre-litigation stage. This is despite the pandemic and was possible by building an efficient online dispute resolution system in India,” the CJI said.

He said ADR mechanisms such as mediation and conciliation were participatory.

“ADR mechanisms enable parties to become insiders to a process that traditionally treated them as outsiders… I have personally seen disputes that have subsisted for decades get resolved through the process of mediation, within a short time,” Chief Justice Ramana underscored.

The CJI highlighted the “moral dilemma” of mediators functioning in the economically and socially diverse context of India.

Earlier, they were expected to be only “passive guides” in the mediation process. But with more and more complex commercial problems coming for mediation, they were expected to provide active assistance, the CJI noted.

He posed questions at mediators functioning in the economically and socially diverse community context.

“What happens when one party is better situated – economically, socially and politically – than the other? What is the duty of a mediator if the settlement reached is patently unjust to the weaker party? Should the mediator be a silent spectator during such negotiations? These are just some of the questions which one must consider, particularly in a country like India with our diverse social fabric. The requirements of substantive equality are a bedrock of every Constitutional democracy, and these ideals must be reflected even during the dispute resolution process,” Chief Justice Ramana reminded.

Majoritarian tendencies

At a separate event to commemorate the 101st birth anniversary of his father and longest-serving CJI Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who is line to be the CJI, stated: “Majoritarian tendencies, whenever and however they arise, must be questioned against the background of our constitutive promise. Any semblance of authoritarianism, clampdown on civil liberties, sexism, casteism, otherisation on account of religion or region is upsetting a sacred promise that was made to our ancestors who accepted India as their Constitutional Republic.”

“Our nation was forged and united, with a promise of certain commitments and entitlements to each and every citizen. A promise of religious freedom, a promise of equality between persons, irrespective of sex, caste or religion, a promise of fundamental freedoms of speech and movement without undue State interference and an enduring right to life and personal liberty,” he stressed.

Legal News

Is It Still Necessary To Continue Sedition Law, Which Was Used By British To Suppress Our Freedom Movement, Even After 75 Yrs Of Independence: CJI Ramana To Centre

Leave a comment

The law, used against Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak, is prone to misuse by the government, says Chief Justice N.V. Ramana

Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, in what may be an unprecedented judicial criticism of the way the sedition law is used by the government to crush liberties, asked why a colonial law used against Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak continued to survive in the law book after 75 years of Independence.

“Sedition is a colonial law. It suppresses freedoms. It was used against Mahatma Gandhi, Tilak… Is this law necessary after 75 years of Independence?” Chief Justice Ramana, heading a three-judge Bench, orally addressed Attorney General K.K. Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre.

Is the law of sedition unconstitutional?

The CJI said sedition or Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code was prone to misuse by the government.

“The use of sedition is like giving a saw to the carpenter to cut a piece of wood and he uses it to cut the entire forest itself,” Chief Justice Ramana lashed out.

The CJI’s oral statement in open court takes a significant note amidst rising public denouncement of Central and State law enforcement agencies using the sedition law to silence dissent, muffle free expression and for denying bail to incarcerated activists, journalists, students and civil society members. A number of petitions have been filed highlighting the “chilling effect” sedition has on the fundamental right of free speech. The CJI’s remarks has also opened the floor for debate and introspection on the court’s own judgment in 1962, in the Kedar Nath case, which upheld Section 124A.

Should the sedition law be scrapped?

The CJI drew the attention of the Attorney General to the conviction rates under sedition.

“If you look at the history of use of this Section 124A of IPC, you will find that the conviction rate is very low. There is misuse of power by executive agencies,” the Chief Justice said.

Stale Laws: 

The CJI asked the government why it did not throw out the sedition law along with the hundreds of “stale laws” it had expunged from the statute books.

“Your government is taking out a lot of stale laws from the law books, why have they not looked into this,” Chief Justice Ramana asked Mr. Venugopal.

People had suffered and were scared of the misuse of the sedition law, Chief Justice Ramana said.

“We are not blaming any particular government or State. But do look at how Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is continuing to be used… How many unfortunate people have suffered? And there is no accountability for all this…” he noted.

The CJI said the sweeping powers of Section 124A gives even a village police officer carte blanche to trample on the right to liberty and free speech of ordinary citizens.

“If a police officer wants to fix anybody in a village for something, he can use Section 124A… People are scared. Our concern is misuse of the law and the lack of accountability. Why has it continued in the statute book even after 75 years of our Independence,” Chief Justice Ramana asked the government’s law officers repeatedly.

The Chief Justice said the Supreme Court would “definitely look into this Section 124A”.

Grave situation:

“The situation on the ground is grave… If one party does not like what the other is saying, Section 124A is used… It is a serious threat to the functioning of individuals and parties,” Chief Justice Ramana noted.

Mr. Venugopal submitted that the court need not strike down Section 124A.

“It is enough to see if there were any excesses in its use and limit the Section to its real purpose… That would be enough,” Mr. Venugopal said.

The Bench issued notice to the Centre on a petition filed by retired Army General S.G. Vombatkere, represented by advocates P.B. Suresh and Prasanna S., to quash Section 124A.

Opportunities

Research Assistantship With Supreme Court Committee: Apply Now!

2 Comments

About the Research Assistantship with Supreme Court Committee

The opportunity of Research Assistantship with the Supreme Court Committee on Prison Reforms is a research-based position formed by justice Madan Lokur and headed by Justice Amitava Roy.

The TOR is quite extensive. Primarily the Committee is looking into reforms in the area of women prisoners and their children, problems of overcrowding in prisons, rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders, issues of staff and the juvenile justice system.

Vacancy

2

Eligibility

Law students and legal professionals are eligible for this research assistantship position.

Application Procedure

Interested Candidates are requested to mail their CVs to avnibahri@gmail.com

Contact

For any queries, you can DM Avni Bahri.