“The working hours are beyond brutal”: Justice Gautam Patel of the Bombay High Court made the remarks while urging the Centre not to notify the Fact-Check Unit till the 3rd judge decides the IT Rules amendment issue.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Maharashtra: Justice Gautam Patel of the Bombay High Court has voiced concerns over the
“intolerable pressure” and “beyond brutal”
working hours faced by judges. These remarks came amidst discussions on the Information Technology (IT) Rules Amendment, specifically regarding the proposed formation of a Fact-Check Unit (FCU) by the Centre.
The court, which had adjourned the hearing to February 8, is deliberating on whether to continue the relief previously granted to petitioners challenging the IT Rules Amendment Act. The Union government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, has opposed any extension of this relief. However, the Bombay High Court, through a special bench comprising Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale, has urged the Centre to hold off on notifying the FCU until a third judge delivers an opinion on the split verdict from January 31.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Issues Split Verdict on IT Rules for Government Fact-Checking
The FCU, as empowered under the Information Technology Rules, is tasked with identifying and tagging online news related to the activities of the Central government as ‘false’ or ‘fake.’ This initiative has sparked considerable debate, culminating in a split verdict by the bench while adjudicating petitions filed by stand-up comic Kunal Kamra and others against the amendment to the IT Act. Justice Patel sided with the petitioners, while Justice Gokhale dissented.
Justice Patel’s plea to Solicitor General Mehta to extend his statement as a courtesy to the third judge, who is yet to be identified, underscores the complex nature of the issue at hand. He expressed concern over the additional burden this case would place on the third judge, given the already overwhelming workload faced by the judiciary.
“Our judges are under the most intolerable pressure. Our Chief Justice has not been able to identify a judge who is available. The working hours are beyond brutal,”
-Justice Patel remarked, highlighting the systemic challenges within the judicial process.
“Let the third judge take a call in the interim. Me extending the statement would not help the petitioners; it would harm the nation,”
-Mehta said.
The case took a turn when Kamra, after an unsuccessful attempt to have the division bench reconstituted, sought directions for the Ministry of Electronics, Information, and Technology (MeITY) to extend the statement of not notifying the FCU. Advocate Navroz Seervai, representing Kamra, argued that the third judge could only address the difference of opinions and lacked jurisdiction to grant interim relief. Mehta’s opposition to this, stating that extending the statement would not benefit the petitioners and could potentially harm the nation, further complicates the matter.
As the Bombay High Court prepares to reconvene on February 8, the legal community and the public await a resolution that balances the need for regulatory oversight with the preservation of judicial integrity and independence. Justice Patel’s candid remarks serve as a poignant reminder of the challenges faced by the judiciary and the critical role of judicial discretion in the face of legislative and executive actions.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
