Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde says there are two types of judges, one who knows law and one who knows law ministers in an exclusive LawChakra interview on Collegium System.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In an explosive interview with LawChakra, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde talked about Institutional Ethos and Team Spirit among the judges of the Constitutional Courts.
He delivered that “Collegium is Temporay”.
Join us as we delve into the Collegium System, Team Ethos and view over the matter of Assam.
Snr. Adv. Sanjay Hegde, started his journy as an advocate in Supreme Court in the year 1991. In 2000, he became the standing Counsel of Karnataka in the Supreme Court. In 2015, he became the Senior Advocate.
Hegde has said in the exclusive interview that “there is a lack of team spirit among the judges of Constitutional courts” also he added, “collegium is temporary“. He described the changes in advocacywith time:
“The legal profession, has evolved with time, technology and economis bringing both opportunity and disparity, just like many others. To shape a fulfilling path for those who focuse on the success, it requires consistent hard work, integrity and passion.”
We asked to take names of top three lawyers in legal world. He denied to take names and said
“I will not take the names. My perception will be different from others. All of the are my friends. and the decision is always made by the public”
Further, when asked about the quality of judges now a days and the questions raised by many big lawyers including Mr. Dushyant Davai about the ethics and integrity of judges, he said
“I do not fully agree with them, but with some things i do agree. Reason being, judges who have been appointed for past 25 years, there reccommendations come from the Collegium. the collegium was formed when Ram Jethmalani, the law minister at that time was fed up with his appointment.”
He further added
“There are two types of judges these days, ‘those who know the law and those who know the law minister. So, even there must have been many bad appointments, but the judges of that time , reflects the social status of that time.”
He talked about the judges in 1991
“I have heard that there were judges of Supreme Court at that time who used to ask how many people are coming to their house, and they used to order sweets according to the number of people. in 1970, when first super session took place, first question among the judges was, who else will come with us in the car tommorow? Because at that time, four judges used to drive a carpool as the budget was also tight. in today’s government budget, judges drive BMWs.”
When asked about the opinion on the ongoing debate on the collegium system and its impact on judicial independence, he said
“Before collegium system, it was not like only government appointments were there. At that time also, opinion of Chief Justice was taken, and Chief Justice also consult their colleagues before giving there opinion. This collegium system is not new, and the purpose is just to not giving free hand to the government for the appointment. One handed appointments cannot be done, independence of judiciary depends on that.”
He further added
“The team ethos is very important, and i do not beleive that it is created among the 700-800 judges in our constitutional courts. And this Collegium is also very temporary, because the members of the judges keep changing. Every two to three months, someone or other retires, the colligium keeps changing.”
Also, he said
“Judges know who is good judge and wo is bad judge. Judges know who is good lawyer and who is bad lawyer. Judges are better judge, but it cannot be that only brothers and nieces can answer.”
ALSO READ: SC Collegium Recommends Two Advocates for Chhattisgarh High Court Judgeship
We asked him about the transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma from Delhi High Court to Allahabad High Court, where the Bar Council of Allahabad High Court opposed by saying that “we are not dustbin” and questioned the collegiun system that “are we dustbin?“, for which he said
“It is not about selection, it was an administrative decision. Justice Varma was in Delhi Collegium at that time. And the motive was that, he cannot practive his seniority and he is not in collegium. The decision was taken so that the problem does not increase”
We asked about the rejection to lodge the FIR in the case of Justice Varma.
He said,
“Protection is provided to the judges, if you are filling any FIR against any judge, you need to take permision of the Chief Justice. There might be chance that it is a conspiracy against the Justice, that is why protection is given.”
We asked him about the in-house inquiry mechanism which is being called wrong by Kapil Sibal, to which Snr. Adv. Hegde said
“Yes it is wrong and Kapil Sibal is correct. It is the requirment of law that if you have to impeach any judge, you have to conduct statutory inquiry before impeachment. The procedure has also been mentioned in the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 for the impeachment.”
Further we asked about the deportation of people of Assam under Immigrants Expulsion Act, 1950. for which he said
“The matter of Assam and the process going on there is a long story. the people of Assam believes thar those who are not of one religion, and do not speak one language are not worthy living in Assam. But in India you can be of any religion and you can speak any language.”
He pointed out
“Just because someone cannot prove they are Indian does not automatically make them Bangladeshi. Deportation without the receiving country’s consent is not just legally unacceptable but also morally unjust. When the Judiciary distances itself from protecting such individual, it risks diluting its role as the guardian of the Constitution, particularly the universal application of Article 21, which guarantees the right of life and dignity to all, not just to Indian citizens.”
He was also asked for his opinion on the issue if “ANI coyright case”
To this he said,
“ANI has taken the law to an extrem. Copyright law says that if you use someone’s content, then they have a right, they should get permission. But what ANI is not doing is not just under Copyright law but also under YouTube policy,if there is a copyright violation three times, then the YouTube channel will shit down. Fair use for 15 seconds, is just a demonstration, that is not the use of Copyright.”
ALSO READ: Case Analysis: Asian News International (ANI) vs Wikimedia
When asked-
“Is it extortion , because ANI strikes, their services and subscriptions are being sold at different prices to every YouTuber”
He said,
“You can say anything in common paralance, but legally, there is no extortion in criminal law. But, it can be called as unfair trade practise or something like that”
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Exclusive LawChakra Interview
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Collegium System
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Sanjay Hegde
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
