ILNS: Chief Justice SA Bobde, the 47th Chief Justice of the country, completed his last day at work on Friday and, in the afternoon, he was accorded a warm farewell by the legal fraternity. The farewell happened online, because of the COVID-19 situation in the country, especially in the Capital.

The 48th Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana, takes over office on Saturday.

At his farewell, CJI Bobde said, “I did my best. I don’t know how it came across, but I am happy about what I could do. I hand over the baton to Justice Ramana who, I am certain, will very ably lead the court.”

The Chief Justice, before bidding farewell, took suo motu cognizance of the COVID-19 crisis and the shortage of oxygen supply in the whole country and issued a show-cause notice to the Centre, States, UTs and other parties before High Courts as to why Uniform Orders cannot be passed by the Supreme Court in COVID-related issues when different High Courts are taking cognisance on this issue on a daily basis and solely taking on the burden.

Thereafter, Justice Bobde sat next to Justice AS Bopanna, Justice V Ramasubramanian and the next Chief Justice of India, Justice NV Ramana, in a four-Judge Bench for his last Judgement, as the Chief Justice of India.

Justice Bobde decided several key cases during his tenure, including the Ayodhya verdict, despite the fact that during his 17-month tenure as Chief Justice, court proceedings went through virtual mode most of the days.

Justice Bobde then expressed the pleasure he felt when he sat through the Virtual mode, “There are many disadvantages of hearings through video-conferencing, but that was the need of the hour.

“But hearing you in virtual mode have made me feel like taking a tour of your chambers without physically visiting them. I can recognise the statue behind the Attorney General, the Jaguar chair of Mr Vikas Singh, the Lord Ganesha idol from the Solicitor General’s office.”

He also added that he could see hills behind lawyers, sculptures and paintings behind lawyers and sometimes guns and pistols.

Justice Bobde expressed his gratitude to the Registry and their immense support and contribution amid the COVID crisis. “I cannot tell you the kind of things that are necessary and need to be done to transit from a physical to virtual hearing,” he iterated.

It seemed the Chief Justice wanted to part with his duties by expressing a whole lot more when he said, “This last hearing has evoked mixed feelings. I have been on the ceremonial bench before, but these feelings are too mixed to allow me to say anything clearly. There are too many things to say.

“All I can say is that I leave this court with happiness, with goodwill, with very fond memories of wonderful arguments, excellent presentation, good behaviour and a great commitment to the cause of justice, not only from my learned colleagues but also from the bar and everyone associated.”

Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, while bidding adieu to the Chief Justice, expressed that the tenure of CJI must be of at least three years.

“In March 2020, the world was suffering from COVID-19. Every country in the world was shaken. The Supreme Court decided to take a call and the bar thought that the court would close down. But, CJI Bobde rose to the occasion and started virtual hearing, with almost 50,000 cases disposed of. It was a great achievement,” the Attorney General said.

The AG also lauded the Chief Justice for his outstanding support during these extraordinary times when, by a judicial order, the limitation period ceased to apply from March 15, 2020, when Justice Bobde realised the fact that clients were not able to meet their counsels during the lockdown.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, “You will not only be known as an erudite and brilliant Judge, but also a loving and caring human. We will miss you. We wish you a healthy and successful life ahead.”

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who is also president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, said, “Even though the pandemic happened, you kept the wheels of justice moving. You took up such a contentious matter on the last day too. This shows the involvement of the Judges and to ensure oxygen supply can be maintained. Till the last day, you were concerned about what is happening. I will say more at the official farewell.”

Read Also: Haryana govt tells Punjab & Haryana HC oxygen supply will be improved

Shivaji Jadhav, President of Supreme Court Advocates On Record Association, applauded Justice Bobde’s “smoothness with which the CJI had created a transmission from physical to virtual courts”.

The Supreme Court on Thursday heard arguments on the recommendations for the appointment of Ad-Hoc Judges and will decide while issuing guidelines for the High Court to be followed for the appointment of Ad-Hoc judges amid a large number of pending cases.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and Justice Surya Kant heard the PIL filed by NGO Lok Prahari regarding the appointment of retired judges as Ad-Hoc judges in all the Courts in order to avoid pendency of cases.

During the arguments, Justice Kaul said, “today the situation is different, it is not a replacement for recommending judges. The idea behind appointing the Ad-Hoc judges is to be dealt with the pendency of Cases in a particular field. There will be tenure for these Ad-Hoc judges and they will help in the clearing of the older cases. They will not deal with the current backlog. I am thinking from a different perspective.”

Chief Justice Bobde while referring to Article 224A of the Constitution of India said, “the constitution has left it to the Chief Justice of the High Court to Decide. If the Judge is not willing to accept the proposal he can refuse it. This is to serve the country, to serve the Constitution.”

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing as an Amicus Curiae in the matter, submitted that there shall be a notification six months before a vacancy arises.

To which the Chief Justice enquired, six months in advance before which vacancies arise? Datar answered stating that this is regarding the regular Judges. Whereas, Datar further submitted that the suggestion of the Union is that the appointment of retired Judges may be done on a case to case basis.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh contended that if a bench will be allocated to handle matters of three or four boards then none of them will go forward.

In addition to this Datar submitted, “there are about 57 lakh cases pending in High Courts out of which 31 lakh pending only in the majority of five High Courts. Madras has only 7-8 vacancies and there are arrears.”

Whereas, the Chief Justice while giving an instance of his experience during his tenure said, due to the pendency of constitutional matters, we cannot have focused on this because then all other matters would have suffered.

Data further stated that the additional judges shall be appointed for a period of 2 years, on which, the Chief Justice that let the Chief Justice of the High Court decision on this and I don’t think that any Chief Justice would recommend names without consulting with the Judge.

The other issues raised by the Chief Justice included whether the dispersion of the salary to the Ad-Hoc judges will be from the Consolidated Fund of India and the other is security, including that nobody will withhold the payment of salary.

Making submission over the last recommendation of the Central government data raised the point that there shall be a provision for the impeachment of such Judges, however, the Chief Justice contended that this will affect the independence of a Judge, “We are not sure about the independence, who would want to be Judge than. I’m not inclined to make any Judge, insecure. There had been allegations against the Judges and some of them were shockingly false, you cannot give security while saying that you can knock them off any time.”

In addition to this Justice Kaul further added, “let us understand the society we are living in today, one is appointed then there will be 3 others who would say, why not me.”

Datar while concluding his arguments submitted that there may be things that may not apply to these judges like they cannot be transferred.

Senior Advocate Ajit Sinha submitted, “interim Order by this Court will be required to activate Article 224 A and designate the Chief Justice for the appointments.”

The bench had further enquired about the timeline required stating, “the government shall tell us a timeline at each stage, timelines which you’ll adhere to. As an SC we’ll put up for the HC but as a union what timeline will you adhere to?” To this, Attorney General K.K. Venugopal referred to the timeline given in the Memorandum of Procedure.

Thereafter Advocate Shobha Gupta appearing for the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association submitted, “We have filed an intervention for the appointment of women lawyers, kindly issue Notice.”

Read Also: ISRO fake spy case: Supreme Court directs CBI to consider report submitted by probe panel as preliminary inquiry report

However, the Chief Justice contended, ”we want women to be Judges, we want women to be CJI. But we are not going to issue notice, please don’t complicate it. We have the interest of women in our minds.

The bench will pronounce its order over the appointment of Ad-Hoc Judges while keeping the matter pending.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its order on a plea seeking a stay on the release of a fresh set of electoral bonds ahead of the assembly elections in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Assam and Puducherry.

The bench of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanium heard the application filed by NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).

Advocate Prasant Bhushan, representing ADR, pointed out that the Reserve Bank of India as well as the Election Commission of India had raised objections over the current Electoral Bond Scheme and written to the government expressing their concern.

Bhushan then pointed out the following flaws in the current Electoral Bond System:

a. Electoral bonds are like currency notes which dilutes the monopoly of the Reserve Bank of India.

b. Electoral bonds have opened the way for large corporations where they can give bribes to the ruling party anonymously because in return, they get favours from the government. Earlier, there was a rule that only 7.5% of the profit can be donated by corporations to parties. But with the amendment this rule has been deleted and another added which permits foreign corporate houses to make donations provided they have their subsidiaries in India.   

c. Electoral bonds promote forgery, cross-border smuggling of counterfeited currency, money laundering through shell companies and, moreover, it promotes bribery.

d. Money given to political parties through electoral bonds promotes terrorism because there are many political parties which have violence in their agenda.

e. Since neither the purchaser of the bond nor the political party receiving the donation is required to disclose the donor’s identity, voters will have no idea of how, and through whom, a political party has been funded.

f. Only the government is always in a position to know who the donor is because the bonds are purchased through the SBI. Therefore, this will lead to victimization of donors who have donated to the other parties other than the ruling party.

After listening to Bhushan’s arguments, Chief Justice Bobde remarked, “If your arguments are correct, then we will have to strike down the law.” To which, he replied, “Of course Milord”. The CJI Bobde asked “How can it be done through an interim order?”

Advocate Prasant Bhushan then clarified that, “We are only seeking a stay on a fresh tranche of bonds that are proposed to be sold from next week, ahead of assembly polls in West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Assam, Puducherry etc.” Then CJI Bobde said, “Isn’t this question more on Political Morality? Was it not considered earlier in R.K. Garg Vs. Union Of India?”

To which, Advocate Prasant Bhushan replied, “It is not a question of political morality rather it is a question of Democracy. The electors have the right to know the source and background of the funding which the political parties are getting so that there must be transparency in the electoral process.”

Thereafter, CJI sought replies from Attorney General K.K. Venugopal on the above mentioned issues of the petitioner. He submitted that this present Law of Electoral Bonds has been carefully devised by the earlier finance minister Arun Jaitley to eradicate the evil of Black money, and he made the following arguments:-

a. That the issuance of Electoral Bonds helps to curb the problem of Black Money in the country because when a person make a donation by way of Electoral Bonds, he goes to the authorized State Bank of India and purchases the bond by way of Cheque or Demand Draft and the bank issues the bond only after complying the norms of “KYC” i.e (Know your Customers norms) in this way electoral bonds would keep a tab on the use of black money for funding elections. In the absence of electoral bonds, donors would have no option but to donate by cash after siphoning off money from their businesses.

b. The political party which is registered under Section 29A of The Representation of The People Act, 1951 can only encash the Electoral Bond within the time limit of 15 days.

c. It has also been made compulsory for the political parties to file the Income Tax return which makes them accountable for every single penny they get by way of electoral bonds.

In the meanwhile, Chief Justice Bobde expressed concern at the possible misuse of electoral bonds, saying, “We don’t want to get into the political arena. But let’s say if a party receives Rs 100 crore by way of electoral bonds what is the guarantee that such money will not be used to fund protests, which can later on turn violent.”

He added, “Such money can be also used to fund terrorism in the country because I am sure there are some political parties which have terrorism in their agenda.”

Attorney General Venugopal replied, “Terrorism can only be promoted by the black money and not by the white money and the present system of electoral bonds eliminates the black money from the country.”

Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Election Commission, submitted, “Without electoral bonds, we will go back to the earlier cash system, which was unaccounted. The Electoral Bond system is one step forward, as all transactions are through banking channels.”

He added that, “We want transparency, but that is the matter of final hearing.” “We are against the stay of electoral bonds as of now because if we stay, we will go back to the unaccounted cash system.”

Read Also: SCBA to write to CJI again on SOP, advocates to march to India Gate on March 25 evening

In its PIL, the NGO had sought that the amendments carried out to the Finance Act be struck down. The ground cited in the petition is that the scheme lacks transparency and the donations made by the way of electoral bonds enjoy 100% tax exemption as they need not be reported to the Income Tax department either.

The electoral bond scheme was notified by the Central Government on January 2, 2018.

The Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, will continue the hearing on a plea filed by Congress leader Sachin Choudhary challenging the Allahabad High Court order, which had imposed a condition on him not to use social media till the pendency of trial in a case against him while granting him bail.

Choudhary was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Police in a case crime no 0198/2020 under Sections 188, 269, 270, 271, 124-A, 505, 153-A, 153-B IPC and under Information Technology Act, & 56 of Disaster Management Act.

The criminal case was filed against him for holding a press conference in breach of lockdown rules to criticize the Central and Uttar Pradesh governments.

The politician from Amroha had said on social media that Prime Minister Modi and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath had mishandled the coronavirus epidemic.

Also Read: Supreme Court overrules its NV International verdict, says short delay can be condoned over discretion of court

On a previous hearing, CJI Bobde had said we don’t think it’s too onerous if a person’s participation on social media creates mischief, why can’t court say you don’t use the instrument by which you caused mischief?

Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, the counsel for the petitioner, replied, There is no allegation relating to social media use against my client.

Also Read: Allahabad HC directs Prayagraj Basic Education Council Secretary to decide on mutual transfer

The CJI said we would like to lay down the law on this. Further the Court said it will consider question of law on whether a trial court while granting bail can restrict a person from using social media. The Court had issued notice but refused to grant interim relief against the High Court order.

The High Court in its order dated 01.06.2020 had held, 

“This modification application has been moved praying for deleting the condition no. 8 in the bail order dated 20.05.2020 granted to the applicant. When the bail application was heard the bail order granted on this condition only. Therefore, there is no justification for deleting condition no. 8. However, the condition no. 8 is modified to the extent that the restraint on use of social media shall continue on the applicant for a period of 18 months or till the conclusion of trial, whichever is earlier.”

New Delhi: The Chief Justice S.A. Bobde today recused himself from hearing a plea challenging the stay order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the government’s decision to trifurcate the state capital.

The recusal decision was taken after senior advocate Ranjit Singh informed the bench of CJI Justice Bobde, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice V Ramasubramanian that the Chief Justice’s daughter had appeared for one of the private parties in the said case before the high court.

Accordingly, the matter has been listed before another bench for next hearing on August 19.

On July 31, the governor gave his assent to the state government’s decision to make Kurnool as the judicial capital, Visakhapatnam as the executive capital, and Amaravati as the legislative capital.

Read Also: SC dismisses plea seeking postponement of NEET JEE exams

Thereafter, a plea was made before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a group of farmers urging the court to stay the decision of the state government to trifurcate the state’s capital at Kurnool, Visakhapatnam and Amaravati. The high court stayed the trifurcation move of the state government after which an appeal has been made before the Supreme Court.

– India Legal Bureau

At least 14 petitions have been filed against the Citizenship Act by political parties, several lawyers, NGOs, student rights organizations and civil rights activists.

Senior advocates and Congress leaders Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kapil Sibal mentioned the pleas before the three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde.

The bench, which also comprises Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant, decided to club all the petitions challenging the validity of the Act and hear them on December 18.

The first petition was filed by the Indian Union of Muslim League (IUML) on November 12, even before the contentious bill was signed by the president.

Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra on Saturday filed a petition for an urgent hearing before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA. Bobde.

Moitra, in her plea, contended that “the Act is an attempt to destroy the principles of pluralism and secularism envisaged by the Constitution”. She also sought the top court’s direction to suspend the operation of the Act and all actions under it pending disposal of her plea.

Congress leader and former minister Jairam Ramesh in his petition said the Act is “discriminatory” and a “brazen attack on the core fundamental rights”.

The impugned legislation violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. The Act is challenged on the grounds that the classification on the basis of religion is unreasonable and arbitrary, Ramesh’s petition said.

In his petition, Jairam Ramesh has sought a declaration that the Act is “ultra vires” or violative of the Assam Accord of 1985, the Constitution and international legislations and obligations under international covenants to which India is a signatory.

Former Union Minister P Chidambaram will also file another petition on behalf of former Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi.

AIMIM chief and Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi, who has also filed a petition in the Supreme Court, had asked Home Minister Amit Shah in the Lok Sabha why he “hated Muslims” so much.

Owaisi, in his petition, has raised the contentions that the Act pushes forcible conversion, discriminates on the ground of religion and illegally divides migrants while urging the court to lift the veil and see the “unholy nexus” between the Act and the National Register of Citizens exercise being carried out in Assam.

Several student organisations, including All Assam Students Union, Peace Party, Citizens Against Hate, NGOs, politician and actor Kamal Hassan, advocates like ML Sharma, and law students have also approached the apex court challenging the constitutionality of the Act.

Meanwhile, the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP), an ally of the ruling BJP, which had so far supported the law, wants to challenge it in the Supreme Court saying “the indigenous people of Assam are apprehensive that their identity and language might come under threat from the influx of refugees”.

The Act seeks to provide Indian citizenship to religiously persecuted Hindus, Parsis, Christians, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, with a cut-off date of their entry into India on December 31, 2014.Muslims have been excluded from the ambit of the law.

The controversial Act is receiving serious criticism and opposition from several quarters for being discriminatory and against the interests of the people by granting citizenship to people from foreign nations and this would create an identity crisis for the people in the North-East states.

Jamia Millia Islamia University and Aligarh Muslim University turned into battlegrounds on Sunday as police entered the campus and run riot to prevent the students from protesting.