Today(on 6th July), At the 4th Justice HR Khanna Memorial National Symposium, Justice PV Sanjay Kumar stressed the necessity of recusal to uphold judicial impartiality, particularly when acquainted with litigants or lawyers. His commitment ensures fairness by avoiding cases with even remote personal connections.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 6th July), In an interactive session at the 4th Justice HR Khanna Memorial National Symposium, organized by the CAN Foundation, Supreme Court judge Justice PV Sanjay Kumar elaborated on his strict adherence to impartiality in his judicial duties. Justice Kumar emphasized the importance of recusal in maintaining judicial impartiality, especially when he has any form of acquaintance with the litigants or lawyers involved in a case.
“I will immediately recuse myself if anyone tries to influence me. I will not hear cases involving individuals who have even a remote connection to me.”
-Justice Kumar asserted, responding to a question posed by a law student during the session. This principle, he explained, is central to upholding the integrity of judicial proceedings.
Justice Kumar recalled his tenure at the Bombay High Court, where he maintained a “not before me” list. This list initially included all individuals he had previously worked with, aside from his close relatives, to avoid any semblance of bias.
“In Bombay, I had a long ‘not before me’ list, including lawyers I worked with and juniors, which initially had 30 names. Justice Lokur advised me that I could hear cases involving office colleagues but not relatives, so the list was reduced to 2. I will never hear a case involving anyone I even vaguely know.”
-he elaborated.
This approach underscores Justice Kumar’s commitment to fairness and impartiality, recognizing that even remote connections could potentially influence judicial decisions. By minimizing any potential conflicts of interest, he aims to foster trust and credibility in the judiciary.
When the discussion turned to aspiring judges, Justice Kumar offered insights on how lawyers might decide to pursue a judicial career. He emphasized that judgeship is not merely a career choice but a calling.
“Judgeship is a calling that ‘comes to you,'”
-he stated, highlighting the intrinsic motivation and dedication required to serve as a judge.
The symposium provided a platform for Justice Kumar to share his experiences and ethical considerations with the next generation of legal professionals, emphasizing the critical importance of impartiality in the judiciary. Through his anecdotes and principles, Justice Kumar demonstrated the rigorous standards he upholds to ensure justice is administered without prejudice.
In judicial colloquium, the profound nature of judgeship was emphasized by Justices Kumar and KV Viswanathan. They shared their perspectives on the true essence of being a judge, the challenges of new criminal laws, and the enduring significance of the Basic Structure doctrine.
“Judgeship is a calling that chooses you, not the other way around. It’s not about perks but a deep sense of duty and a divine calling. If you’re drawn to the judiciary by perks or status alone, it won’t sustain your commitment to the profession.”
-Justice Kumar stated.
This profound declaration underscores the intrinsic motivation required for a judicial career, highlighting that the role is far beyond mere material benefits.
Justice Kumar’s statement resonates deeply within the judiciary, reflecting the ethos that drives many to pursue this demanding yet fulfilling profession. It is this sense of duty and higher purpose that forms the cornerstone of judicial integrity and dedication.
Both Justices Kumar and KV Viswanathan also addressed the recent changes in criminal laws, admitting their unfamiliarity with the new provisions.
“We haven’t had the chance to review the new law or its provisions. Therefore, I haven’t formed any opinions, which is why I don’t even read newspapers. I haven’t seen the act yet.”
-Justice Kumar quipped.
This candid admission sheds light on the evolving nature of the legal landscape and the continuous learning curve that judges must navigate.
Their openness about the lack of immediate familiarity with new legislation is a testament to their commitment to due process and thorough understanding before forming judicial opinions. It also reflects the complexities and responsibilities that come with their esteemed positions.
Earlier in the day, Justice Kumar delivered an insightful address on the Basic Structure doctrine, a pivotal concept in Indian constitutional law.
He remarked-
“The Basic Structure doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in the case of Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala, safeguards the Constitution from being substituted by a new one through Constitutional amendments by a majority-led parliament.”
This doctrine, established in the landmark 1973 case, ensures that certain fundamental features of the Constitution remain inviolable, preserving the essence of India’s democratic framework.
Justice Kumar’s address highlighted the enduring relevance of the Basic Structure doctrine, particularly in times of significant political and social change. It serves as a safeguard against potential overreach by the legislature, ensuring that the core principles of the Constitution are upheld.
The reflections of Justices Kumar and KV Viswanathan provide valuable insights into the philosophical and practical aspects of judicial responsibilities. Their emphasis on a sense of duty, the necessity for continuous learning, and the protection of constitutional integrity resonate with the fundamental values of the judiciary.
