President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and renowned Senior Advocate Dr Adish C Aggarwala has written an open letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, asking him to ignore the wild and imaginary accusations made against the Registry.

The letter was written by the SCBA President to the CJI on December 7, talking in length about letters written by certain senior lawyers, alleging improper listing of cases before the Apex Court.

The SCBA President said that the assignment of cases was not open to question on the judicial or the administrative side and, as a corollary, it is neither required to be by way of a speaking order nor is it required to be justified by responding to any person calling it into question.

The letter added that writing of such letters was malicious and amounted to embarrassing the Administration.

The letter said that time has come where one should put an end to the practice of writing such letters.

By putting a stop to such a practice, the interests of the Bar and the administration of justice will be subserved, he said.

Aggarwala further said that it was essential to curb every attempt to scandalise the court mechanism with insinuations and falsehood, aimed at mischievously shaking the confidence of the public incthe courts.

The SCBA president also praised the incumbent CJI for giving confidence to younger members of the bar to argue cases, which may have invited the ire of senior lawyers who write such open letters.

He said those who are unable to afford unrealistically high fees are also enthusiastically seeking justice and are being given a fair hearing, and relief as per the merit of their case. Perhaps the said treatment at par of younger members of the Bar has not gone down well with a few senior lawyers who have started making concerted efforts to overawe this system.”

The letter further made a fervent appeal that CJI Chandrachud ignore such self-serving and malicious, motivated and dubious attacks on the independence of the judiciary.

The SCBA chief said that if the Chief Justice of India succumbed to such pressure tactics, it would sound a death knell to the independence of this great institution at the hands of certain vested interests.

The issue of listing of cases before the Supreme Court has recently garnered attention.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan on Wednesday wrote to the Supreme Court Registry raising grievance over the allegedly arbitrary breach of listing rules when it came to listing certain cases.

Senior Advocate and former SCBA president Dushyant Dave too had recently written to CJI DY Chandrachud expressing anguish over the listing of sensitive cases.

In an open letter addressed to the CJI, Dave claimed that many cases which were being heard by certain benches, were shifted out and listed before other benches. This, Dave claimed, was in violation of the Supreme Court Rules and the Handbook on Practice and Procedure of the Court, which govern listing of cases.

He had added that such a practice does not augur well for the institution, and thus pressed for corrective steps to be taken.

On May 12, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Justice of India NV Ramana to implement three demands of the people of Tamil Nadu. The open letter relates to discussing the demands regarding the functioning of the judiciary. Stalin wrote: “There is no doubt that the federal structure of polity is the cornerstone of our Constitution. All our three pillars of democracy—legislature, executive and judiciary—are established within this federal structure. Though there is a hierarchy of Courts, with the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as the Apex Court, the unitary make up of the judicial branch is only to ensure judicial discipline so that the judgements of the Supreme Court are followed by all Courts and authorities in India…”

The letter pointed out that “in this context it becomes all the more important that the Supreme Court’s and the High Court’s composition reflects the diverse and pluralistic society of our great nation.” 

“Judicial diversity is fundamental to the quality of judging. A broad based, heterogeneous group of Judges representing various sections of the society as a whole alone can reflect the views and values of society as a whole, particularly on issues involving historical, traditional, linguistic and cultural matters. This is because they would provide wider perspectives, since the group of Judges would naturally interpret and enforce law based on their multi various backgrounds”, said the letter, adding: “Therefore, I request your good selves to include the requirements to maintain social diversity and social justice in the appointment of High Court and Supreme Court Judges in the Memorandum of Procedure to appoint Judges and follow the same in true letter and spirit.”

The letter also raised the issue of the federal character of the nation and wanted it to be reflected in the judiciary as well. It said: “Another issue in which the federal character of our nation must be reflected in the judicial branch is the establishment of Permanent Regional Benches of the Supreme Court of India. When the Constitution was enacted, it was in the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution that all citizens of this country, rich or poor, must have direct access to the Court. That is why they enacted Article 32, a privilege not available in most other countries. Yet over time, this privilege has been eroded by economic constraints…. While there are 25 High Courts across the nation, it is seen from data that the number of appeals being filed in the Supreme Court is more from States around the NCR region than States located further away from Delhi.”

The chief minister said that the legislature has been conscious that the time is high for the establishment of Permanent Regional Benches and the Standing Committees of Parliament have recommended the same in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008 and most recently in 2021. “Various Law Commission Reports like the 229th Report have reiterated the need for Permanent Regional Benches. Establishment of Regional Benches will in no way affect the independence of the judiciary since the control over these Benches would still remain with the Chief Justice of India. It is not out of place to point out that in China, which is the only other country with a population greater than ours, there are nine circuit Courts of its Supreme Court. Therefore, I request you to take appropriate steps to establish Permanent Regional Benches of the Supreme Court in New Delhi, Chennai, Kolkata and Mumbai, apart from the Constitution Bench in New Delhi, so that the citizens in other parts of this vast country have equal access to the Supreme Court”, urged the chief minister.

The third aspect that Stalin addressed is the official language of the High Courts. He wrote that in four High Courts—Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar— Hindi has been authorized as the official language in addition to English. “One therefore wonders what is the impediment to make the official language of other States the official language of the High Court , in addition to English?  In this regard, I wish to inform that the State has taken several initiatives to bring out standard books on Law in Tamil and moreover as a language that is both Classical and a vibrant modern language it would be perfectly suitable to be used in the High Court”, the letter submitted.

Furthermore, Stalin considered in the letter that making law and justice comprehensible to the common man in its proceedings is essential in the justice delivery system. He said in the letter: “The only concern with making the State’s official language the language of the High Court can be the requirement of translation when Judges from other States sit in the High Court. However, with the improvement in modern technology, these difficulties can be easily bridged.” 

He further said: “In a function held on 23.04.2022 at the Madras High Court, where I had the privilege of sharing the dais with the Hon’ble Chief Justice, who had said in a lighter vein that “judicial proceedings cannot be like chanting of mantras in a wedding that nobody understands”. Yet, this has unfortunately become true in today’s High Courts. Therefore, I request your good selves to take appropriate steps to declare Tamil the official language of the Government of Tamil Nadu, as the official language of the High Court of Judicature at Madras and its Bench at Madurai, in addition to English. 

“I placed these three demands in my speech in the said function on 23.04.2022 in the Madras High Court premises in the august presence of the Hon’ble Chief Justice.  I remain in the fond hope that these three demands of the people of Tamil Nadu will be considered and implemented by your good selves in the nearest future,” the letter concluded.

Article 348(1)(a) of the Constitution states that unless Parliament by law provides otherwise, all proceedings before the Supreme Court and in every High Court shall be conducted in English. Article 348(2) provides further that notwithstanding the provisions of Article 348(1), the Governor of a state may, with the previous consent of the President, authorise the use of Hindi or any other language used for any official purpose, in proceedings in the High Court.

The Official Languages Act, 1963 empowers the Governor of a state to, with previous consent of the President, authorise the use of Hindi/the official language of the state, in addition to English, for the purpose of any judgement, decree or order passed by the High Court of that state.

—By Shivam Sharma and India Legal Bureau

Women Rights Activists have written an open letter to Justice Krishna S Dixit of the Karnataka High Court against his remark on the rape victim while hearing a bail petition.

Calling the order “narrow, patriarchal and prejudiced” the women activists have urged the Judge “to expunge the toxic and misogynistic statements from the order and deliver one that is based on law and not on prejudice.”

The letter talks about the order dated June 22 when Justice Dixit while granting bail to the accused, stated that the complainant’s claim of having slept “after the perpetration of the act” because she was tired was “unbecoming of an Indian woman”. “That is not the way our women react when they are ravished”. The order laments after making some more statements related to the conduct of the woman in which it is indicated that by accompanying the accused to a hotel and not objecting to have “drink with the accused” she in fact is responsible for the assault committed on her person.

It has further been stated that the order was more concerned about the liberty of the rape accused and his health if he is incarcerated in times of the COVID 19 pandemic. It has been alleged that the Order has pre-empted and prejudiced the investigation and trial virtually dismissing the allegations of rape indicating that there is no prima facie evidence based the character assassination of the victim.

The letter further states that “using term like “ravished” instead of the legal term “sexual assault”, blaming the woman for the delay in filing her complaint, although she did it the next morning and casting aspersions on the character of the woman on account of her behavior is part of a continuing historical narrative which has legitimised different forms of violence be it domestic, sexual or economic and granted social if not legal impunity to the perpetrators of this violence.”

The activists also stated that, the order takes them back to “Mathura Case” where Supreme Court had upheld the Sessions Court order which acquitted the Accused, questioning the “moral” integrity of the 15 year old who they claimed had been “habituated to sexual intercourse” based on little or no evidence.

The order also reflected the same patriarchal, classist and casteist mindset that wrote the Rameeza Bi and Bhanwari Devi judgements in the eighties and nineties, stated the letter.

The activists lamenting at the order stated it is a matter of shame that such an order was coming from within the portals of the Karnataka High Court which sets the Indian judiciary and the struggle of women’s rights movements back by decades.

“We do not accept that guardians of law and order and the Constitution become guardians of women’s morality and behaviour, claiming us as “our women” violating our own fundamental right to choose and express our emotions, thoughts, anxieties, fears, opinions in our own way and of our own volition. We will not accept that we are told time and again that “we ask for it” every time we choose to protest the violation of our bodies and our persona. We do not accept victim blaming and victim shaming when we are “punished” for “unladylike” behavior like socialising with men, being out late at night or drinking alcohol. And we cannot accept when judicial officers abandon their role as Judges with constitutional obligation and responsibilities but instead express opinions that justify the worst of patriarchal norms and practices”, said the letter.

The letter has been written on behalf of 17 Organizations and 22 individuals representing different sections of the society.

-India Legal Bureau