Supreme Court Seeks Attorney General’s Insight on Crucial Judicial Issues
The Supreme Court, in a series of significant developments, has sought the Attorney General’s counsel on several pressing judicial matters, emphasizing the overarching themes of transparency, efficiency, and the rule of law.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!To begin with, the apex court, under the leadership of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, has expressed interest in the Attorney General‘s viewpoint on the live streaming of Constitution Bench proceedings. This initiative stems from a plea that advocates for the broadcasting of proceedings in cases of national significance, such as those related to Aadhaar and the decriminalization of gay sex. Senior advocate Indira Jaising, the force behind the petition, highlighted the international trend wherein courts permit their proceedings to be recorded. Drawing attention to various global practices, Jaising mentioned that while some courts allow publication after a brief delay, others provide edited versions or transcripts of the proceedings. She firmly believes in the public’s right to information and suggests that if live streaming isn’t an option, video recordings should be made available. Her plea poignantly articulated that such measures ensure that
“Justice is not only done but it is seen to be done.”
In another noteworthy move, the Supreme Court has called for the Centre’s response on the establishment of a specific procedure for the time-bound disposal of mercy petitions. This initiative was prompted by a plea from Shiv Kumar Tripathi, who pinpointed the current system’s arbitrariness and its potential to cause public unrest. Tripathi’s plea emphasized the judicious and consistent exercise of the power to grant pardons. He argued that the absence of a clear procedure leads to “arbitrariness” in the disposal of mercy petitions, which can result in public unrest and skepticism. Tripathi further noted that in some instances, prolonged delays in the disposal of mercy petitions have allowed convicts to have their death penalties converted to life imprisonment, causing distress to victims and their families.
Lastly, the court is also delving into the timeframe within which the Centre should notify the appointment of judges, as recommended by the Supreme Court collegium. Advocate Harsh Vibhore Singhal’s PIL labeled the current state of affairs as a ‘zone of twilight’. Singhal contends that any undue delay in notifying a judge’s appointment, once endorsed by the Supreme Court Collegium, infringes upon their fundamental rights. Citing the Supreme Courts Advocates on Record Association & Anr v. Union of India (1993), Singhal’s petition argues against the Centre’s discretionary powers in such notifications. He suggests that such delays not only undermine the essence of judicial independence but also disrupt the seniority of the recommendees.
These unfolding events, sourced from the provided links, underscore the Supreme Court’s unwavering commitment to reinforcing the principles of justice, transparency, and efficiency within the Indian judiciary.
