Ex-CJI Rajan Gogoi in Rajya Sabha: Much ado about nothing

The habitual torchbearers and paid chest-beaters have once again shown their true colors in opposing tooth and nail Presidential nomination of the former Chief Justice of India Rajan Gogoi under Article 80 of the Constitution of India.

This lobby of Lutyens raised hue and cry against the nomination of the ex- CJI and attributed quid pro quo to him just because he was the part and parcel of the larger bench of the Supreme Court that delivered historic judgments on the centuries-old matters like Ayodhya Ram temple and security sensitive issue like Rafael deal.

In fact, by doing so, this infamous lobby consisting hardly about two dozen advocates of the apex court cast aspersions on the credibility and independence of the highest court judges.

Other judges, who are in no way concerned about the present controversy of ex-CJI nomination to the Rajya Sabha, also have been painted with the same dirty brush.

In fact, this pressure group or lobby has nothing to do with the courts' independence or credibility as they are following a particular agenda of their political bosses who are determined to tarnish the image of judiciary at any cost. The appointment of Ranjan Gogoi is not the solitary incident.

Earlier too many judges and Chief Justices of higher judiciary have adorned the prestigious positions like Governorship, Chairmanship, Ministership and alike either under the government or through nomination under the president of India.

The makers of the Constitution of India intended that intelligentsia and cream of the society representing different walks of life should be represented in the Rajya Sabha so that the country gets benefit of their knowledge and experience while taking crucial decisions.

Therefore, any opposition to the nomination of any personality is not only against the spirit of the Constitution but also an affront to the President's wisdom.

Incidentally, the very lobby of vested interests had eulogised Justice Rajan Gogoi when he set in protest along with other judges against alleged arbitrary manner of allotting cases in the roaster by the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra and even addressed a press conference!

Obviously the country can ill-afford to such arm-twisting tactics by a lobby which is also patronised by the Congress, the much-defamed party which was responsible for the imposition of Emergency and thereby subverting the Constitution.

The lobby has been nothing but a puppet in the hands of self centered politicians who hailed from a family which is responsible for burdening the country with the illogical and impracticable ideologies such as Secularism and Socialism against the will of the people.

A few of the lobby members are also said to be receiving active support both financial and logistic from the left parties, Jehadis and extremists. Indeed, in the appointment of the ex-CJI Rajan Gogoi, the country has given to itself the most shining jewel in its crown and therefore, his entry into the august house; called Rajya Sabha deserves the red carpet welcome.

Curtain falls on Nirbhaya case

At last the curtains have came down on the much discussed Nirbhaya case and all the four convicts have been hanged in the wee hours of March 20. The nation, thus, heaved a sigh of relief if not rejoicement after the delayed justice in a case which had evoked a lot of public interest.

The Nirbhaya Case leaves behind a tray of several unanswered questions including by resorting to the abuse of law how a smart lawyer can drag on the case for a pretty long period. It also raises the question of propriety over-zealous defence lawyers who crossed the "Lakshman Rekha" drawn by the Rules of Conduct framed by the regulatory body, the bar Council of India.

Taking advantage of all the legal remedies available in the law it is undoubtedly a prerogative of a lawyer representing a client, but at the same time, knowing it fully well the futility or ultra-vires of a chosen remedy just to gain time and defeat the purpose of law is certainly condemnable.

Otherwise, what else justification could be there for approaching the International Court of Justice which has no jurisdiction over individual disputes. Even an elementary school student knows this fact.

Obviously, the desperate defence lawyers had lost the sense of proportion in putting forth their defence which really meant utter disregard for the country's judiciary and tarnishing its excellent image before the comity of nations.

True, the good old Akhil Bharatiya Jansangh Party from Hyderabad has raised the lone wolf voice against the evil machinations of the lawyers of the defence lawyers in Nirbhaya Case and asked the regulatory body, the Bar Council of India to take stern action against them.

Surrender of passport in contempt case

The Supreme Court of India in Shyam Sahani vs. Arjun Prakash and others (Civil Appeal No. 2210 of 2020), has held that the High Court have powers to order the surrender of passport of the contemnor in the contempt of court case to ensure his presence in the court.

The Division Bench comprising Justice R Bhanumathi and Justice A S Bopanna in its reportable judgment dated March 19 stated, "in order to ensure the presence of Respondent No.1 and to ensure further of the trial, the order of the learned single judge directing Respondent No. 1 to deposit his passport before the Court stands confirmed".

Man seeks home delivery of liquor, fined

The Kerala High Court slapped a hefty cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner by name Jyothish for filing a writ petition seeking a direction to the Beverages Corporation to take a decision to make available potable liquor for delivery to consumers in the State through online platforms.

The petitioner had represented to the Beverage Corporation that since the outlets are inevitable crowded during business hours; the outbreak of Covid-19 virus has rendered it unsafe for him to visit an outlet for procuring alcohol for his consumption. Hence, he made suggestions on alternate modes of delivery of alcoholic liquor to consumers.

While dismissing the Writ Petition with 'the contempt it deserves', Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar observed: "it is with a deep sense of exasperation and a tinge of disgust that I write this judgment", and added, "the citizenry ought to realize that the restrictions imposed by this Court on the filing of the cases is with a view to ensuring that their fundamental rights as citizens, for access to justice, are guaranteed to the extent possible, even at the cost of exposing the Judges, lawyers, clerks, staff of this court to the risk of viral infection".

Terming it as the mockery of the salutary concept of access to justice, the Court did not grant permission to withdraw the petition and went on to impose the exemplary costs of Rs.50,000.

Covid-19 brings court to a grinding halt

Like other sectors of the society, the rapid spread of Covid-19 in the country has also brought the regular Court work to a grinding halt in the country.

In most of the States besides the Supreme Court of India, all High courts and Subordinate Courts have curtailed or all together stopped the entry of advocates, litigant public, witnesses and staff at all levels. The prevailing situation as it turns will determine further course of action.