ISSUE DATE: May 17, 2021
UPDATED: May 7, 2021 17:30 IST
Illustration by Siddhant Jumde
In 1748, Montesquieu published L’Espirit des Lois or The Spirit of Laws, which introduced the theory of separation of powers and formed the basic foundation of several constitutions, including that of India. The State that most effectively promotes liberty is one where the legislative, executive and judicial powers are entrusted to different bodies that act independently of each other.
After the Emergency of 1975-77, the advent of public interest litigation (PIL) brought the judiciary centre stage. While PILs played a salutary role in releasing 40,000 under-trial prisoners, checking pollution and preventing deforestation, the judiciary was increasingly petitioned to resolve almost every major crisis. The 19th century political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville famously remarked: “There is scarcely any political question in the United States that does not ultimately resolve itself into a jud
Share This -
x
The Supreme Court on Monday passed a slew of guidelines regarding the appointment of ad-hoc judges in High Courts under Article 224A of the Constitution.
A bench comprising
Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Surya Kant passed the judgment in the case
Lok Prahari vs Union of India. Lok Prahari, an NGO, had approached the Top Court through a PIL filed under Article 32 seeking the invocation of Article 224A to tackle the problem of mounting case arrears in High Courts.
CJI SA Bobde said that the bench has passed a 64-paragraph judgment, broadly accepting the discussions held during the hearing. The CJI did not read out the guidelines and said that the judgment will be released soon during the course of the day.
Share This -
x
Ad-hoc appointments are intended to hear old pending cases; such appointments cannot be a substitute for regular appointment.
The Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for the appointment of ad-hoc judges in High Courts under Article 224A of the Constitution of India.
Article 224A enables a Chief Justice of a High Court, with the previous consent of the President, to request a former High Court judge to sit and act as a judge of the High Court to hear cases. The provision has been invoked very rarely in the judicial history of India.
A bench comprising the
Madras Bar Association Moves Supreme Court Challenging Tribunals Reforms Ordinance 2021
Share This -
The Madras Bar Association has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the
Sections 184 and 186 of the
Finance Act 2017 give Central Government rule-making power in relation to the mode of appointment, terms of service, allowances of members etc., of various Tribunals.
The Ordinance, promulgated by the President on April 5, follows the Rules made by the Centre in 2017 and 2020, which came under severe criticism from the Supreme Court. The 2017 Tribunal Rules were quashed by the Supreme Court in the 2019 case
Rojer Mathew vs South Indian Bank Ltd and otherson the ground that they affected judicial independence. Following that, the Centre framed another set of Rules in February 2020. The Madras Bar Association had challenged the 2020 Tribunal Rules contending that they were inconsistent with the judgments in
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved orders on a plea seeking appointment of ad-hoc judges in High Courts using Article 224A of the Constitution of India.A bench headed by the Chief Justice of India.