Judges shouldn`t shy away from criticism: CJI
Judges should not shy away from constructive criticism of their actions and decisions as such review leads to the development of law, Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia has said.
New Delhi: Judges should not shy away from constructive criticism of their actions and decisions as such review leads to the development of law, Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia has said.
Chief Justice Kapadia said this here Tuesday while releasing a book, "The Kesavananda Bharati case: The untold story of struggle for supremacy by the Supreme Court and Parliament", written by eminent jurist T.R. Andhyarujina.
"We judges are not afraid of constructive criticism of our actions and decisions by the bar," Chief Justice Kapadia said.
He regretted that senior counsel are too engaged in their professional pursuits to pay attention to the development of statutory and constitutional law.
He declined to be part of the discussion on the plea that judges should not get involved in debatable issues.
The book recounts the "tensions and conflicts in the Kesavananda Bharati case - not only between the rival sides but also among the judges, some of whom had preconceived views because of being judges in earlier cases and others by reason of their selection by the government."
The book reveals "the stratagems of the (then) Chief Justice S.M. Sikri on the date of the judgment on 24 April, 1973 by which he formulated a paper hurriedly prepared by him `The Views of Majority`".
"This paper was signed in Court by 9 judges, 4 other refusing to ascribe their signatures to it." This has come to be known as a majority decision in the Kesavananda Bharati case.
Andhyarujina said the book deals with the actual account of how the case developed and dealt with and the decision arrived in a "dubious manner".
His account of the case is based on his "recollections and notes maintained by him as a counsel in the case and on later interviews by him with some of the judges in the case".
The book was described by various speakers as a maiden attempt in Indian judicial history to see beyond the pronouncement of a judgment and how it was arrived at.
In the case, the Supreme Court held that parliament cannot tinker with the basic structure of the constitution.
It laid down 35 parameters to define the basic structure of the constitution that include rule of law, secularism and separation of powers between the three organs of the state -- legislature, executive and judiciary.