Skip to main content

Welcome assurance: On the executive sharing judiciary's burdenT (Hindu )

The importance of cooperation between the executive and the judiciary in dealing with the unacceptably high number of pending cases in the country cannot be overemphasised. For over a year, there were indications of an impasse over judicial appointments between the two branches of the state, mainly after the Supreme Court struck down legislation to establish a National Judicial Appointments Commission. That phase appears to be coming to an end. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s assurance to the Chief Justice of India, J.S. Khehar, that his government would contribute its share in reducing the judiciary’s burden is a positive gesture that will be welcomed by the legal fraternity. Speaking at a function to mark the 150th anniversary of the Allahabad High Court, Mr. Modi gave the assurance after observing the pain behind the words of Justice Khehar over the increasing backlog of cases. Justice Khehar’s “dil ki baat (talk from the heart)” on the problem underscored an institutional anguish that has gripped the judiciary over time. Successive Chief Justices have brought to the government’s notice the state of affairs with regard to both the alarming docket situation and the chronic shortage of judicial hands in the superior and subordinate judiciary. The previous Chief Justice of India, T.S. Thakur, had highlighted the point in public functions as well as during judicial hearings, once even wondering if the government wanted to bring the judiciary to a grinding halt by its reluctance to fill up vacancies. If the Prime Minister’s latest remarks represent a fresh resolve not to let such an impression gain ground, it will surely represent a new beginning in the executive-judiciary relationship.

Mr. Modi did not spell out whether his assurance to contribute to the process meant his government would expedite the process of appointing judges, but there is no doubt that this will be the most significant contribution as well as the government’s responsibility. Official figures show there are as many as 437 vacancies in the High Courts alone as of March 1, 2017. It is incontestable that any effort to liquidate the arrears of cases would involve a significant increase in the speed at which judicial appointments are processed. Mr. Modi also spoke of the use of technology and digitalisation in the judicial system, a point that is of undoubted relevance when one considers the magnitude of the task of reducing the backlog. There is much that the use of technology can do in both liquidating arrears and expediting processes such as filing of documents and serving of notices. Meanwhile, reports suggest that the government and the Supreme Court Collegium may be close to agreeing on a new Memorandum of Procedure for judicial appointments. If differences that caused a prolonged stand-off are eliminated and a new procedure agreed upon, there cannot be better tidings for the institution.

Popular posts from this blog

NGT terminates chairmen of pollution control boards in 10 states (downtoearth,)

Cracking the whip on 10 State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) for ad-hoc appointments, the National Green Tribunal has ordered the termination of Chairpersons of these regulatory authorities. The concerned states are Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Rajasthan, Telangana, Haryana, Maharashtra and Manipur. The order was given last week by the principal bench of the NGT, chaired by Justice Swatanter Kumar. The recent order of June 8, 2017, comes as a follow-up to an NGT judgment given in August 2016. In that judgment, the NGT had issued directions on appointments of Chairmen and Member Secretaries of the SPCBs, emphasising on crucial roles they have in pollution control and abatement. It then specified required qualifications as well as tenure of the authorities. States were required to act on the orders within three months and frame Rules for appointment [See Box: Highlights of the NGT judgment of 2016 on criteria for SPCB chairperson appointment]. Having

High dose of Vitamin C and B3 can kill colon cancer cells: study (downtoearth)

In a first, a team of researchers has found that high doses of Vitamin C and niacin or Vitamin B3 can kill cancer stem cells. A study published in Cell Biology International showed the opposing effects of low and high dose of vitamin C and vitamin B3 on colon cancer stem cells. Led by Bipasha Bose and Sudheer Shenoy, the team found that while low doses (5-25 micromolar) of Vitamin C and B3 proliferate colon cancer stem cells, high doses (100 to 1,000 micromolar) killed cancer stem cells. Such high doses of vitamins can only be achieved through intravenous injections in colon cancer patients. The third leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide, colon cancer can be prevented by an intake of dietary fibre and lifestyle changes. While the next step of the researchers is to delineate the mechanisms involved in such opposing effects, they also hope to establish a therapeutic dose of Vitamin C and B3 for colon cancer stem cell therapy. “If the therapeutic dose gets validated under in vivo

SC asks Centre to strike a balance on Rohingya issue (.hindu)

Supreme Court orally indicates that the government should not deport Rohingya “now” as the Centre prevails over it to not record any such views in its formal order, citing “international ramifications”. The Supreme Court on Friday came close to ordering the government not to deport the Rohingya. It finally settled on merely observing that a balance should be struck between humanitarian concern for the community and the country's national security and economic interests. The court was hearing a bunch of petitions, one filed by persons within the Rohingya community, against a proposed move to deport over 40,000 Rohingya refugees. A three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, began by orally indicating that the government should not deport Rohingya “now”, but the government prevailed on the court to not pass any formal order, citing “international ramifications”. With this, the status quo continues even though the court gave the community liberty to approach i